| Case ID |
3ac05a47-f8fc-4ab6-a466-3c23ac62a4f7 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
R.A. No. 105 of 2003 |
| Decision Date |
Oct 13, 2017 |
| Hearing Date |
Sep 25, 2017 |
| Decision |
The High Court declined to interfere with the Lower Appellate Court's decree as there was no illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error found in the findings. The revision application was dismissed, affirming the appellate court's judgment that upheld the plaintiff's claim for specific performance regarding the agricultural land. The court emphasized that the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is limited to ensuring that lower courts have exercised their jurisdiction correctly without any legal or procedural errors. The case highlighted the importance of proper documentation and credible testimonies in establishing oral agreements, particularly in property disputes. |
| Summary |
In the case of R.A. No. 105 of 2003, the Sindh High Court addressed a dispute between CHOUDHRY GHULAM RASOOL and MISTRI GHULAM RASOOL regarding the specific performance of an agreement for the sale of agricultural land. The applicant challenged the decision of the Lower Appellate Court that had decreed in favor of the plaintiff, despite the trial court's dismissal of the suit. The case revolved around the interpretation of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, which governs the High Court's revisional jurisdiction. The court found no jurisdictional errors in the appellate court's decision, emphasizing that the mere existence of conflicting judgments does not warrant interference unless there is a clear illegality or irregularity. The case underscores the significance of credible evidence and the role of judicial discretion in civil proceedings. Key concepts involved in this case include specific performance, jurisdictional error, and the validity of oral agreements in property transactions. Legal practitioners and stakeholders in property law can draw valuable insights from this ruling, particularly in terms of the evidentiary standards required to support claims of specific performance. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
ARSHAD HUSSAIN KHAN
|
| Lawyers |
Abdul Jabbar Khaskheli,
Arbab Ali Hakro,
Ghulam Abbas Sangi
|
| Petitioners |
CHOUDHRY GHULAM RASOOL THROUGH L.RS.
|
| Respondents |
MISTRI GHULAM RASOOL
|
| Citations |
2018 SLD 1630,
2018 CLC 1099
|
| Other Citations |
Malik Tanveer Ali and another v. Sardar Ali Imam and 2 others, reported in 2010 YLR 1799,
Muhammad Ishaque v. Azizuddin and others [2004 MLD 251],
Abdullah and 11 others v. Muhammad Haroon and 8 others [2010 CLC 14],
Siraj Din and others v. Mst. Khurshid Begum and others [2007 SCMR 1792],
Mrs. Sherbano v. Kamil Muhammad Khan [PLD 2012 Sindh 293],
Mst. Kulsoom and 6 others v. Mrs. Marium and 6 others [1988 CLC 870],
Rehmat Ali Ismailia v. Khalid Mehmood [2004 SCMR 361],
Hafiz Muhammad Ramzan and others v. Muhammad Khalique [1991 CLC 417],
Muhammad Nasir Mehmud and others v. Mst. Rashidan Bibi [2000 SCMR 1013],
Nabi Bux and others v. Syed Mumtaz Ali Shah and another [2000 MLD 1318],
Aasa v. Ibrahim [2000 CLC 500],
Muhammad Ashraf v. Municipal Corporation, Gujranwala through Mayor/Administrator [2000 MLD 514]
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
Specific Relief Act, 1877
|
| Sections |
115,
12
|