1991 SCMR 1339

SHER MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM

Share on WhatsApp ⭐ Prefer in Google

Citation1991 SCMR 1339

CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan

Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 105 of 1985

Date1989-03-08

Judge(s)Javid Iqbal and S. Usman Ali Shah

ResultLeave to appeal refused

ORDER

1. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J: -- Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner against the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan dated 15-1-1985, accepting partly civil revision of the petitioner, arising out of a civil suit filed by him against the respondent for a declaration that he was in possession of the suit property measuring 82 kanals and 9 marlas of agricultural land and an Ihata, the respondent was only a Benamedar of the suit property and had no connection with it. He had also made a prayer that the respondent had transferred the property in favour of the petitioner vide Mutation No.125 attested on 15-6-1968 and the respondent had no right to get it cancelled. During the course of hearing the petitioner made a statement in the Court that if the respondent makes an oath on the Holy Quran that he had purchased the agricultural land and Ihata from his own money then his suit be dismissed. The respondent accepted the offer and took the oath. Thereupon the learned trial Court vide its order dated 25-5-1965, dismissed the suit. Appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed vide order dated 13-7-1981. His revision petition before the High Court was partly accepted so far as it related to the IHATA in dispute and remanded the case to the trial Court, however so far the land in dispute is concerned the revision was dismissed, vide order dated 15-1-1985.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for petitioner we feel that the matter relating to the agricultural land in question stands concluded by findings of fact against the petitioner by the Courts below concurrently. As far as the question relating to the Ihata in dispute is concerned, there seems to be some ambiguity in the terms of oath which was taken by the respondent in Urdu in the following terms:--

3. Obviously, the oath clarifies the term `land in dispute' and does not mention the `Ihata'. This fact has not been taken into consideration by the Courts below but the learned High Court has pointed out this lacuna in the terms of oath and rightly remanded the case to the trial Court with direction to dispose of the suit within three months and submit compliance report.

4. In the circumstances, we find, that there is no justification for any interference by this Court. Leave to appeal is therefore, refused.

5. H.B.T./S-427/S Leave to appeal refused.