HAFEEZ AHMAD vs SAIN and others

ORDER

' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment/order, dated 9th July, 1999 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby civil revision filed by petitioner has been dismissed.

2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that one Chiragh Din the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that on the basis of document, dated 4th July, 1977, he was owner in possession of the land in dispute measuring 69 Kanals, 8 Marlas as detailed in the head note of the plaint and that subsequent mortgaged deed, dated 11th July, 1982 and its Mutation No,1100, dated 8th August, 1982 in favour of Muhammad Arshad respondent No,5 was without authority, without legal justification, without consideration, collusive based on fraud, illegal hence liable to be set aside. He also prayed for permanent injunction as consequential relief restraining the respondents to interfere into his ownership possessory rights. The suit was contested by the respondents by filing written statements. The trial Court framed issues arising out of the pleading of the parties. Both the sides led evidence in support of their respective pleas.

Learned trial Court after having gone through the record and taken into consideration all attending circumstances, dismissed the suit vide judgment, dated 9th September, 1982. Petitioners, feeling dissatisfied from the judgment of the trial Court, appealed before learned Additional District Judge Faisalabad, who vide judgment, dated 4th November, 1991 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved from the judgments of the trial and Appellate Courts, petitioner approached the Lahore High Court, Lahore by filing civil revision, which too met the same fate by means of impugned judgment. As such instant petition has been filed.

3. We have heard the learned counsel and have also perused the record as well as the impugned judgment carefully. It was contended on behalf of petitioners that an application for the purpose of obtaining opinion of handwriting expert on Iqrarnama, dated 4th July, 1977 was filed but the application was not disposed of, therefore, it has caused injustice to the petitioners. It may be noted that learned High Court had attended this aspect of the case and observed that "non- sending of the thumb-impression of the said Hussain Bux in the given circumstances is not of any legal significance particularly when a careful perusal of this document shows that this document can neither be treated as an agreement to sell nor a will and on the basis thereof the petitioner could not claim any declaration of ownership". The observation so made by A learned High Court in this behalf appears to be convincing in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the argument so raised by learned counsel being devoid of force is repelled accordingly. It may also be noted that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by trial Court, affirmed by Appellate Court as well as High. Court. The findings so recorded are neither perverse nor suffering from any legal infirmity, therefore, following the dictum laid down by this Court in the cases of Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah (PLD 1994 SC 291) and Mussarat Sultana v.

Muhammad Saeed (1997 SCM R 1866) we are of the opinion that no point for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan is made out.

' Thus for the foregoing reasons the petition is dismissed and leave declined.