P L D 2020 Sindh 8 (PLP)
NADEEM WAQAR KHAN — Appellant Versus JAVED MASOOD AHMED KHAN — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2020 Sindh 8 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NADEEM WAQAR KHAN — Appellant Versus JAVED MASOOD AHMED KHAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005), (b) Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2020 Sindh 8 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005), (b) Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2020 Sindh 8 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2020 Sindh 8 (PLP) (NADEEM WAQAR KHAN — Appellant Versus JAVED MASOOD AHMED KHAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abrar Ali Khichi, APG. For Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 3 & 4
Prevention of illegal possession of property
Business partners
Scope
Applicant claimed that his brother who was also his business partner dispossessed him from the place of business (restaurant) and ultimately demolished the same
Trial court dismissed the complaint
Applicant himself admitted the status of respondent as that of partner
Prima facie, each partner would be presumed to be in possession or control of business, hence legally the remedy of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 would not be available for a partner against other partner even if the allegation was that of dispossession
Application was dismissed.
S. 3
Prevention of illegal possession of property
Civil dispute
Scope
Complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is maintainable against any person who forcibly dispossesses the occupier or owner but such remedy is never meant to settle civil dispute or a substitute for the civil suit.
Judgment & Decree
SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, J.
Through instant criminal revision application, applicant has challenged order dated 27.04.2017 whereby complaint under sections 3 and 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was dismissed on the plea that admittedly applicant and respondent No.1 are brother and partners in the business of restaurant hence this is not a case of forcible dispossession.
2. Heard and perused the record.
3. Perusal of complaint reflects the same contention of learned trial judge with regard that applicant and respondent are brother inter-se and they had business of hotel for years; applicant is claiming that his elder brother dispossessed him from the business and ultimately demolished that premises; as well civil suit is pending between the parties. Learned counsel has relied upon 2016 SCMR 1931.
4. There is no cavil to the proposition that complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 is maintainable against any person who forcibly dispossesses the occupier or owner but such remedy is never meant to settle civil dispute or a substitute for civil suit. Here in this case the applicant himself admits the status of respondent (accused) as that of 'partner' though alleged to be sleeping. The rights and liabilities of a 'partner' are controlled by the terms and conditions of partnership deed 'however what the term 'partner' refers to is a: "business by two or more individuals who share management and profits'. Prima facie, the each partner would be presumed to be in possession or control of such business, hence legally the remedy of Illegal Dispossession Act would not be available for a partner against other partner even if allegation is that of dispossession. Perusal of impugned order shows that same is on reasonable grounds and with regard to removal of documents and accounts from the property as well dispossession if any, applicant is at liberty to approach civil court. This Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. SA/N-18/Sindh Revision dismissed.