Summary: PLJ 2015 Peshawar 249 -----Specific Relief Act 1877 (I of 1877), Section 9 - Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Order XXIII Rule 1(2) - Possession of property as per revenue record - Validity: Petitioners had no right in the suit property, and the suit was time-barred, having been filed after 18 years. As joint owners, a decree for possession cannot be granted, making the plea misplaced. Partition can only be sought against co-owners, and a suit for possession under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act has different requirements, which were not met by the petitioners. No sale document was produced, nor did the purchaser attempt to be impleaded in the case, thus preventing any determination on that basis in the absence of documentary proof. Petition was dismissed [Pages 250-251]. -----Background: The respondents, as owners in possession of a disputed property per the revenue record, filed a suit for possession against the petitioners/defendants, who claimed to have co-ownership rights. The case involved previous litigation, where respondents were granted permission to withdraw and refile the suit with expanded claims. This revision petition challenges the dismissal of the petitioners’ appeal against judgments by the trial and appellate courts in favor of the respondents. -----Issues: 1- Whether the suit is time-barred due to the delay from the original suit filing. -----2- Whether the petitioners, as alleged co-owners, are entitled to a decree for partition instead of possession. -----3- Whether the plaintiffs’ alleged consent for construction on the property estops them from reclaiming possession. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Timeliness of the Suit: The court held that the suit was not time-barred. Although the original suit was filed in 1980, permission to refile was granted by the court in 1993, and the current suit was filed within the permissible timeframe. --Right to Partition vs. Possession: The court rejected the petitioners' argument for partition, noting that they were not legally co-owners. The Specific Relief Act’s Section 9 on possession did not apply, as the petitioners had no title or ownership documents proving co-ownership. --Estoppel on Construction Consent: The court found no evidence that the plaintiffs gave active consent for construction. A local commissioner assessed the construction value, which was appropriately compensated by the lower courts. The court dismissed the petition, affirming that the lower courts had neither misdirected nor misinterpreted the evidence, and their judgments were legally sound. -----Citations/Precedents: Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877), Section 9 Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order XXIII, Rule 1(2)

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.