GHULAM RASUL vs BASHIR AHMAD and others
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's civil revision against concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts. The petitioner had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding land ownership, claiming rights through prescription and challenging inheritance mutations in favor of the respondents. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the appellate court upheld this decision. The High Court dismissed the subsequent civil revision, noting that the suit had abated under the Punjab Ordinance XIII of 1983 and that an appeal against the trial court's decree was not maintainable. The Supreme Court examined the arguments and the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court held that since the findings were concurrent and based on facts, and because the suit had abated under the relevant ordinance, there was no ground to interfere with the High Court's decision. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the finality of the concurrent findings and the legal effect of the abatement provision.
- Does a suit abate under the Punjab Ordinance XIII of 1983?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in a civil revision?
- Is an appeal maintainable against a trial court's decree if the suit has abated under the Punjab Ordinance XIII of 1983?
- Punjab Ordinance XIII of 1983
ORDER
1. ' S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dated 2-12-1986, whereby his civil revision against the concurrent findings of facts of the Courts below, was dismissed.
2. ' The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding the land in dispute which was originally owned by Muhammad Boota deceased. The petitioner claimed himself to be the owner in possession of the suit land and according to him he had acquired the rights of ownership under the law of prescription, and all the three mutations (detailed description of which is given in the plaint) of inheritance in favour of the respondents/defendants were illegal, void and liable to be rectified. The suit after contest by the defendants was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Liaquatpur vide his order dated 20-2-1986. The petitioner's appeal before the Additional District Judge-III, Rahimyar Khan failed on 26-10-1986, and his civil revision before the High Court was also dismissed in limine, vide impugned judgment.
3. 'After going through the findings of the Courts below in the light of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find that the suit of the petitioner was dismissed on finding of facts. His appeal before the District Court was dismissed on merits. Both the concurrent findings of fact by the Courts were not interfered with by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The learned High Court also held that "the suit had abated under the Punjab Ordinance XIII of 1983 and an appeal against the trial Court's decree of dismissal of petitioner's suit did not lie."
4. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner argued all those points which stand concluded by the concurrent findings of all the three Courts below. We consider that it is not a fit case in which leave to appeal is to be granted. It is, therefore, dismissed.