2. During course of arguments, the main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioner was on the score that the learned Courts below failed to apply correct law on the subject, rather failed to adjudicate the matter with independent judicious mind, as correction of long standing entries in the revenue record did not come in the domain of the revenue hierarchy but to recourse the civil Court, being court of ultimate jurisdiction. Moreover, if at all the respondents were aggrieved of the judgment of learned trial court dated 16.06.1956, they would have filed an application under section 12(2) of the C.P.C. instead of moving an application for correction of entries incorporated in the mutation No.1403 Dated 26.02.1960 but this aspect has totally been ignored by the learned Courts below while delivering the impugned judgments and decrees. Both the learned Courts below have neither read the evidence on record nor perused the documents with the suit and have rendered the impugned judgments and decrees mere on the basis of surmises and conjectures, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; hence, by allowing the civil revision in hand, the impugned judgments and decrees may be set aside, consequent whereof the suit instituted by the petitioner may be decreed, as prayed for. Relies on Sameen Khan and 4 others v. Haji Mir Zad and others (2002 CLC 754-Peshawar), Kala Khan and others v. Rab Nawaz and others (2004 SCMR 517) and Mst. Mumtaz Begum through Legal Heirs and others v. Muhammad Shafique and others (PLD 2009 Lahore 418).
Part of Judgment
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.
Civil Revision-Civil Revision(Against Decree)
1386-11
0 comments:
Post a Comment