2024 PLP 1224 (YLR)

ASIM HAFEEZ, J.

Order of respondent No.1 is under challenge on inter alia various grounds, primary being the question relating to the scope of jurisdiction conferred and if same was exercised in accordance with the mandate of subsection (3) of section 7 of The Punjab Woman Enforcement of Property Rights Act, 2021 ('Act').

2. At the outset, learned counsel for respondent No.1, carrying record of the proceedings before respondent No.1, averred that report, in terms of sub-section (3) of section 7 of the Act, was submitted with the concerned Civil Judge but no response was received, whereafter, respondent No.1 had proceeded to decide the complaint submitted by respondents Nos.7 and

8. Adds that order of partition of property, to be effected through the Deputy Commissioner, was passed on statement of the counsels for some of the parties, who expressed no objection if possession of the land is granted to the respondents Nos.7 and 8.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that relevant persons, whose civil suits are pending adjudication, were neither impleaded as parties nor heard before passing order of delivery of possession. Adds that civil suit of respondents Nos. 7 and 8 are still pending, who, on one hand had sought determination of the issues through civil suit and on the other brought complaint for seeking delivery of possession. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.7 and 8 argued that rights of said respondents to the extent of land other than one which is subject of litigation were granted and no illegality was committed.

4. With the assistance of learned counsels copy of report under sub-section (3) of section 7 is examined. There is no cavil that, in the circumstances encountered, which may vary from case to case, courts, where civil suits are pending, are required to respond to the report, state reasons and proceed in accordance with the mandate of subsection (3) of section 7 of the Act, failing which respondent No.1 has had to proceed to act in accordance with the jurisdiction conferred. Exercise of jurisdiction by respondent No.1 cannot be stalled or held in abeyance merely because the concerned court is not responding to the report. It is noted that partition of property was ordered by respondent No.1 merely because partition proceedings, otherwise pending before the Tehsildar, were adjourned sine die. Learned counsel fail to justify that merely because of this fact, per se jurisdiction is exercisable by respondent No.1, which ordered Deputy Commissioner to partition the property. This course of action is unjustifiable. Further, no discussion is found in the order regarding the scope of the civil suit filed by the respondents Nos. 7 and 8, subject matter issues therein and parcel of land involved. When asked, it is apprised that said civil suit is pending adjudication and notwithstanding filing of complaint by respondents Nos. 7 and 8, said suit is pending. One of the primary objection raised is that parties to the civil suit(s) were either not impleaded as party to the complaint nor heard before ordering partition.

5. I find the order impugned deficient on various counts - each court need no elaboration in wake of remand of matter. It is appropriate to set-aside the order and remand the matter to respondent No.1, which shall allow the parties, impleaded in the complaint, and those, which had interest in the land and are parties to civil suit(s), relating to the land in question - after notices to the persons indicated in latter category - to file objections within fifteen days of specific order passed by respondent No.1, which objections, if any, filed and the complaint shall be decided within one month of the date of filing of objections. Respondent No.1 shall also examine the effect of pending civil suit by respondents Nos.7 and 8 while deciding complaint. Parties are directed to maintain status quo till decision of the complaint. It is observed that respondent No.1 shall submit report with the court where civil suit(s) are pending and shall proceed accordingly, if no response in terms of subsection (3) of section 7 of the Act is received.

6. Petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. No orders as to the costs. MQ/K-2/L Petition allowed.