Mst. ZOHRA Versus MEHER BANU

1. DR. RANA MUHAMMAD SHAMIM, C.J.--- The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents filed a Civil Suit No.99/2002 before the administrative Civil Judge Gilgit for declaration of the disputed land on the basis of inheritance share which was vehemently contested by the defendants/petitioners on the basis that some portion of the disputed property was personally acquired by petitioners Nos.1 and 2 whereas some part of disputed property was gifted to defendant No.2 by late Ramzan father of defendant No.1 and plaintiff for his meritorious services of defendant No.2 in favour of his Father in law. He also contends that the learned trial court as well as the first appellate Court failed to conceive and understand the case and passed the impugned judgments/decrees against the petitioners which were assailed in the learned Chief Court through revision but the learned Chief Court upon hearing dismissed the revision petition. He also contends that the impugned judgment/decree passed by learned Chief Court and subordinate Courts are based on conjectures surmises opinion and suppositions, hence, not maintainable. He submits that the gross miscarriage of law and procedure has been adopted by the learned Chief Court and subordinate courts during the proceedings of the case. He further submits that the impugned judgment is illegal and unjustified without any sanction of law and not tenable in law. He further contends that the learned Chief Court and courts below fell in error in understanding the facts of the case and totally misconceived the facts and passed the impugned judgments which has caused great miscarriage of justice, hence the impugned judgments/ decrees are not maintainable and liable to be set aside. He submits that the learned Chief Court and that of the subordinate Courts deliberately avoided to look into the case on merits and passed judgments on technical ground to deprive the petitioners from their vested rights. He also submits that the learned Chief Court failed to apply its judicial mind to the facts that the procedural mishaps occasioned during trial of the case and deliberated avoidance to bring on record the fact of death of plaintiff, hence the impugned judgments/decrees are not maintainable. He lastly, submits that the learned Chief Court had jurisdiction to correct and cure the illegality committed by the learned subordinate courts but the learned Chief Court instead of correcting the mistakes of subordinate courts itself repeated and committed the same mistakes on mere technical grounds which caused miscarriage of justice, hence, the impugned judgments are not maintainable. He finally prayed that the concurrent findings of all three courts be set aside.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for petitioners, perused the record of the case file and gone through the impugned judgment dated 25.06.2012 of the learned Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan and the Courts below. In our considered view no illegality and infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The concurrent findings of all the three Courts below are well reasoned and well founded. Consequently, leave to appeal is refused and the judgments of all the threes Courts below are maintained.

3. Leave refused.

4. HBT/204/GB Leave refused.