Concurrent findings on facts have been recorded and re-appraisal of evidence cannot be made while exercising powers under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

3. Contrarily, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgments and decrees and has further argued that the respondent has fulfilled the required Talbs in accordance with law; that the suit has been filed well within time prescribed under law, even the point of limitation has not been raised by the petitioner while submitting written statement. He adds that concurrent findings on facts have been recorded and re-appraisal of evidence cannot be made while exercising powers under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He has prayed for dismissal of the civil revision in hand. Reliance has been placed on Sultan Ali and another v. Mirza Moazzam Baig (1987 MLD 2583(1)- Karachi), Muhammad Ramzan v. Ahmad Bux and another (1991 SCMR 716), National Bank of Pakistan v. Khushal Khan (PLD 1994 Peshawar 284), Messrs Tribal Friends Co. v. Province of Balochistan (2002 SCMR 1903) and Province of Punjab through Collector and others v. Muhammad Saleem and others (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 783).

 Part of Judgment 

LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Civil Revision (Against Interim Order) Decree US. 115 C.P.C
1227602.888-11

2017 LHC 4327