2007 PLP 1690 (YLR)
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Controller, Okara and 3 others — Petitioners Versus Mst. KHURSHED BEGUM through Legal Heirs — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1690 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja, J |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Controller, Okara and 3 others — Petitioners Versus Mst. KHURSHED BEGUM through Legal Heirs — Respondent |
| Primary Law | ---S. 8---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115---Suit for possession, Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1690 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: ---S. 8---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115---Suit for possession, Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1690 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1690 (YLR) (PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Controller, Okara and 3 others — Petitioners Versus Mst. KHURSHED BEGUM through Legal Heirs — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Nawaz Bajwa for Petitioners.
- Mian Hameed-ud-Din Qureshi for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 10th October, 2006.
Headnotes / Summary
Trial Court for valid reason dismissed suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation
Appellate Court without giving any finding on the question of limitation, decreed suit simply on the ground that plaintiffs had been able to establish their ownership in the suit land
Counsel for defendants had rightly argued that Appellate Court had failed to address the rationale of the Trial Court which had resulted in the dismissal of the suit--Counsel for plaintiffs had contended that no issue in relation to limitation having been framed by the Trial Court, plaintiffs were not called upon to lead evidence on the same
Contention was misconceived as issue was framed by the Trial Court in that respect
Plaintiffs could not prove that defendants had forcibly taken possession of disputed area four years prior to filing of the suit
No Revenue functionary, however was produced by plaintiffs as a witness in the case--Impugned appellate judgment and decree being result of illegality in the exercise of court's jurisdiction, same was set aside with the result, that decree of the Trial Court stood restored. Other respondents ex parte.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
The petitioner-defendants impugn the appellate judgment and decree dated 1-12-2001 whereby the decree of the learned trial Court dated 30-11-2000 was set aside and suit filed by Mst. Khurshid Begum deceased respondent-plaintiff (now represented by her L.Rs.) seeking possession of the suit property, was decreed.
2. The facts of the case have been .elaborately set out in the judgment of the learned trial Court and need not, therefore, be reproduced in extenso. For valid reasons 'recorded in paragraph 13 of the judgment of the learned trial Court the respondents suit was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The learned Appellate Court has not given any finding on the question of limitation and has simply decreed the suit of the respondent on the ground, that they have been able to establish their ownership in the suit-land.
3. According to the facts of the case, the Government Primary School No.2 (petitioner No.4) has been functioning at the site since 1950. The plea raised by the petitioners, inter alia, was that they had acquired prescriptive title in the property by virtue of section 28 of the Limitation Act. This defence was upheld by the learned trial Court for proper reasoning based on the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner rightly argued that the learned Appellate Court had failed to address the rationale of the learned trial Court which had resulted in the dismissal of the suit.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that no issue in relation to limitation had been framed by the learned trial Court and, therefore, the respondents were not called upon to lead evidence on the same. This contention, however, is misconceived. Issue No.3 was framed by the learned trial Court in the following terms:-- "Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed in view of preliminary Objections Nos.2 to 6? OPD" In their written statement the petitioners had expressly taken the plea of limitation at Serial No.4 of the preliminary objections. In these circumstances, it is quite evident that limitation was very much an issue before the learned trial Court and the same was encapsulated in Issue No.3 reproduced above.
5. In addition to above, is to be noted that none of the respondents appeared in the witness-box. Only their general attorney, namely, Zafar Iqbal appeared as P.W.1. The case set up by the respondents was that the petitioners had forcibly taken possession of the disputed area four years prior to the filing of the suit. This contention, however, was not proved considering the overwhelming evidence both oral and documentary brought on record by the petitioners-defendants. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that some revenue functionary had prepared a report to substantiate the plea that the petitioners had taken possession of the suit-land by force. No Revenue functionary, however, was produced by the respondents as a witness in the case.
6. In the foregoing circumstances, I find the impugned appellate judgment and decree to be a result of illegality in the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction. The same is, therefore, set aside. As a result, the decree of the learned trial Court dated 30-11-2000 stands restored. The petitioner shall also be entitled to their costs throughout. H.B.T./P-12/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision allowed.