MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE and others vs Mst. MUQADDAS BEGUM and others
The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal against the dismissal by the High Court of their civil revision, which had arisen out of a suit for possession through partition. During the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners raised technical points but failed to point out any reliable or cogent evidence to establish that the title of the respondents, as challenged by the petitioners, was not validly established. Finding the petitioners' case to be weak on merits regarding the challenge to title, the Supreme Court held that it was not a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused. The key principle laid down is that leave to appeal will be refused when the petitioner fails to point out cogent and reliable evidence to substantiate weak challenges to the established title of the opposing party in partition and possession matters.
- Whether leave to appeal can be granted when the petitioner fails to point out reliable and cogent evidence supporting their challenge to the respondents' title?
- Is a civil revision arising out of a suit for possession through partition maintainable without cogent evidence on title?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--The plaintiffs side have sought leave to appeal against the dismissal by the High Court of their Civil Revision; which had arisen out of a suit for possession through partition.
2. Learned counsel raised some technical points in support of this petition; but when questioned whether there was any reliable and cogent evidence, so as to hold that the title of the respondents side challenged by the petitioners was not established, he remained unable to rely on anything worth mentioning.
3. ' The petitioners having a weak case in this behalf, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The same, therefore, is refused.