| Case ID |
38373221-d235-43f6-93e8-313c12a8fc82 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Revision Application No. 40 of 2011 |
| Decision Date |
May 20, 2013 |
| Hearing Date |
Apr 15, 2013 |
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application filed by Shamim Ahmed challenging the judgments of the lower courts. The court upheld that both parties had encroached upon a portion of the street and that the findings of the lower courts were based on an inspection report that had not been contested. The petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the claim of encroachment by the respondents, and the appeal was deemed not maintainable. The court reiterated that its revisional jurisdiction is limited, particularly when concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are involved. |
| Summary |
In the case of Shamim Ahmed versus Muhammad Fareed and others, the Sindh High Court dealt with a civil revision application concerning a dispute over possession of immovable property. The applicant, Shamim Ahmed, claimed that the respondents had encroached upon his land, specifically an 8-foot portion adjacent to his property. The lower courts dismissed the suit based on the report of a commissioner, which indicated that both parties had encroached upon public land. The High Court emphasized the limited scope of its revisional jurisdiction, reinforcing that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts cannot be disturbed unless there are significant errors. The decision underscored the importance of evidence in property disputes and the legal standards governing encroachments. This case serves as a critical reference for practitioners dealing with property law and encroachment issues, highlighting the necessity for clear evidence and the challenges in revising lower court decisions. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J
|
| Lawyers |
Anayat Hussian Shah Bukhari,
Fazle Rabbi,
Aneela Danish
|
| Petitioners |
SHAMIM AHMED
|
| Respondents |
2 others,
MUHAMMAD FAREED
|
| Citations |
2013 SLD 2949,
2013 YLR 2836
|
| Other Citations |
2001 SCMR 789,
PLD 1994 SC 291
|
| Laws Involved |
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877),
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
|
| Sections |
8,
115
|