Taqseem |The Lahore High Court declared the petitioner's case inadmissible on the basis of non-participation of the co-owners in the partition claim and hearsay testimony. 2024 MLD 1508



The Lahore High Court declared the petitioner's case inadmissible on the basis of non-participation of the co-owners in the partition claim and hearsay testimony.
2024 MLD 1508






کورٹ نے اپنے ریمارکس میں کہا کہ درخواست گزار نے تمام شریک مالکان کو فریق مقدمہ نہیں بنایا، جس کی وجہ سے مقدمہ ناقابل سماعت اور نااہل تھا۔ پنجاب پارٹیشن آف اموویبل پراپرٹی ایکٹ، 2012 کے تحت بغیر تمام شریک مالکان کو فریق بنائے اور بغیر کسی دعویٰ منافع کے مقدمہ دائر کرنا غیر قانونی ہے۔ مزید یہ کہ درخواست گزار خود گواہ کے طور پر پیش نہیں ہوا اور اس کی گواہان کی گواہی غیر معتبر اور سنی سنائی باتوں پر مبنی تھی، جسے زیریں عدالتوں نے درست طور پر رد کر دیا۔

عدالت نے کہا کہ درخواست گزار کا دعویٰ محض سنی سنائی باتوں پر مبنی تھا اور اس نے ٹھوس شواہد پیش نہیں کیے۔ درخواست گزار کے پیش نہ ہونے اور حلفیہ بیان نہ دینے کی وجہ سے بھی اس کا کیس کمزور ہوا۔ زیریں عدالتوں نے شواہد کو درست طور پر پرکھا اور ان کے فیصلے کو نظرثانی کی درخواست کے تحت ختم نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔


تمام شریک مالکان کو فریق مقدمہ بنائے بغیر دعوی تقسیم جائیداد قابل سماعت نہ ہے
2024 MLD 1508
MUBASHAR ALI SHAH VS MUHAMMAD SHARIF
Civil Revision No 58370 of 2021
Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act, 2012
Non-impleadment of all other co-owners as defendants-Effect---No claim of mesne profit in the suit---Competency of suit-Non-appearance of petitioner himself as a witness-Effect Claim of the petitioner based on hearsay evidence---Validity---Petitioner did not implead all the co-owners in the suit, therefore, the suit was not maintainable and competent---Passing of preliminary decree in partition suit under Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act, 2012, (ACT) is not provided; therefore, without claiming mesne profit undem the Act, the suit was not competent---Deposition of PW.1& PW.2 was based on hearsay, which had also rightly been disbelieved by the lowe courts-Non-appearance of the petitioner himself in the witness box ane not making deposition on oath also went against him---Courts below ha rightly appreciated and evaluated evidence of the parties and had reache to a just conclusion, concurrently, that the petitioners had failed to prov their case by leading cogent, confidence inspiring and trustworth evidence---Concurrent findings on record could not be disturbed exercise of revisional jurisdiction under S. 115 of C.P.C---

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.













 



 







































 
































Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Property ki taqseem ,Warasat main warson ka hisa

Punishment for violation of section 144 crpc | dafa 144 in Pakistan means,kia hai , khalaf warzi per kitni punishment hu gi،kab or kese lagai ja ja sakti hai.

Bachon ki custody of minors after divorce or separation