2015 GBLR 184

GHULAM NABI Versus Mst. GUL NAJAF

Citation2015 GBLR 184

CourtSupreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan

Judge(s)Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Raja Jalal-ud-Din and Muzaffar Ali

1. DR. RANA MUHAMMAD SHAMIM, C.J.--- The learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioners contended that the petitioners/defendants were the real owners of the suit property and the disputed property is in their possession. He further contended that a Civil Suit No. 10/2009, was filed by the plaintiffs before the Civil Judge 1st Class Nagar for declaration and consequential relief against the present petitioners, which upon hearing and framing as many as 10 issues was dismissed vide order dated 31.05.2013, with cost. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order/judgment dated 31.05.2013, passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Nagar in Civil Suit No. 10/2009, the plaintiffs/respondents filed Civil First Appeal in the Court of learned District Judge Hunza/Nagar. The learned First Appellate Court after hearing accepted the appeal of the respondents/plaintiffs vide its order dated 19.09.2013, in C.F.A. No. 56/2013, holding that the respondents were equally entitled for inheritance in the property left by their late father. The learned Appellate Court further observed that Muhammad Ibrahim died at the age of 90 years and he was dump, duff and also insane. The petitioner namely Ghullam Nabi could not produce any witness with regard to the gift deed executed in the year 1986 in his favour.

2. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied by the order/judgment dated 19.09.2013, passed by the learned Additional District Judge Hunza/Nagar filed Civil Revision Petition No. 63/2013 before the learned Chief Court, Gilgit-Baltistan with the prayer that the order/judgment dated 19.09.2003, passed by the learned Additional District Judge may be set-aside by accepting their revision Petition and the order/judgment dated 31.05.2013, passed by the learned trial Court may be maintained. Upon hearing, the learned Chief Court, Gilgit-Baltistan dismissed the said revision petition with cost declaring the same as meritless and not maintainable and maintained the impugned judgment dated 19.09.2013, passed by the learned Additional District Judge Hunza/Nagar.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further contended that the petitioners feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order/judgment dated 17.03.2014, passed by the learned Chief Court, Gilgit-Baltistan filed this petition for leave to appeal before this apex Court for setting aside the said impugned judgment as well as the order dated 19.09.2013, in C.F.A. No. 56/2013, passed by the learned Additional District Judge Hunza/Nagar. He further contends that the judgment dated 31.05.2013, passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class Nagar in Civil Suit No.10/2009 be maintained.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned order dated 17.03.2013, passed by the learned Chief Court, Gilgit-Baltistan, in Civil Revision No. 63/2013, as well as order dated 19.09.2013, in C.F.A. No. 56/2013, passed by the learned Additional District Judge Hunza/Nagar are well reasoned and well founded and the same are required to be maintained. He further submits that the judgment dated 31.05.2013, passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class Nagar in Civil Suit No.10/2009 has rightly been reversed by both the learned Courts below being against the facts and law.

5. We have heard both the learned counsel for the respective parties at length, perused the record of case file and gone through the impugned judgments of all the three Courts below. In our considered view, the impugned judgment dated, 17.03.2014, passed by the learned Chief Court, Gilgit-Baltistan as well as the judgment dated 19.09.2013, passed by the learned Additional District Judge Hunza/Nagar are well reasoned and well founded as no infirmity and illegality was pointed out by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, the same are therefore, maintained and hold that the learned First Appellate Court rightly reversed the judgment in Civil Suit No. 10/2009, dated 31.05.2013, passed by the learned Civil Judge Nagar. We accordingly converted the petition into an appeal and dismissed by short order dated 21.09.2015 and these were the reasons for it dismissal.

6. The appeal is dismissed.

7. HBT/211/GB Appeal dismissed.