1980 PLP 574 (SCMR)
Syed ALI ABBAS-Petitioner Versus ALLAH BAKHSH AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1980 PLP 574 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Syed ALI ABBAS-Petitioner Versus ALLAH BAKHSH AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Supreme Court Roles, 1956 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP 574 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court Roles, 1956 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 PLP 574 (SCMR)?
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: 1980 PLP 574 (SCMR) (Syed ALI ABBAS-Petitioner Versus ALLAH BAKHSH AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- M. A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- ‑‑O. XLIX, r. 6‑Compromise application accompanied by affidavit of parties and signed by Advocates‑on‑Record of both parties-- Agreement appearing to be quite lawful and apparently containing nothing to take exception to‑Disposal of petition ordered in terms of compromise embodied in application.
- M. A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.‑In this case the parties have filed an application under Order XLIX. rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1956, praying that it may be decided in the terms of the compromise as contained in paragraph 3 of the aforesaid application. The application is accompanied by an affidavit of Mst. Murtazai Begum alias Naseem Begum widow of Syed Ali Abbas and the affidavit of Allah Bakhsh son of Chandia, respondent No. 1, in the case. According to this compromise the parties have agreed that "(i) the portion transferred to the respondents be allowed to remain intact ; (it) the passage 3'.1"x 16' be allowed to be used by both the parties i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 1. The other passage leading to the first floor transferred to petitioner measuring 4' x 11' is however the exclusive ownership of the present petitioner. The site‑plan signed by both the parties is enclosed marked as "AA"; (iii) the rest of the entire residential accommodation along with the small shop shall vest in favour of present petitioner". It is further stated that respondent No. 1 has undertaken not to interfere in the residential accommodation and shop transferred to Syed Ali Abbas (deceased) now represented by his widow Mst. Murtazai Begum. The application is also signed by the learned Advocates‑on‑Record for both the parties. The agreement seems to be quite lawful, apparently there is nothing to take exception to it. The present petition is disposed of in terms of the compromise as embodied in the relevant application.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgments and orders of the Lahore High Court dated 17-3-1976 and 23-4-1976 in W. P. No. 1073-R/74). --O. XLIX, r. 6-Compromise application accompanied by affidavit of parties and signed by Advocates-on-Record of both parties-- Agreement appearing to be quite lawful and apparently containing nothing to take exception to-Disposal of petition ordered in terms of compromise embodied in application. Date of bearing: 11th February 1980.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑O. XLIX, r. 6‑Compromise application accompanied by affidavit of parties and signed by Advocates‑on‑Record of both parties-- Agreement appearing to be quite lawful and apparently containing nothing to take exception to‑Disposal of petition ordered in terms of compromise embodied in application. A. R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. M. A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of bearing: 11th February 1980. KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.‑In this case the parties have filed an application under Order XLIX. rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1956, praying that it may be decided in the terms of the compromise as contained in paragraph 3 of the aforesaid application. The application is accompanied by an affidavit of Mst. Murtazai Begum alias Naseem Begum widow of Syed Ali Abbas and the affidavit of Allah Bakhsh son of Chandia, respondent No. 1, in the case. According to this compromise the parties have agreed that "(i) the portion transferred to the respondents be allowed to remain intact ; (it) the passage 3'.1"x 16' be allowed to be used by both the parties i.e. petitioner and respondent No.
1. The other passage leading to the first floor transferred to petitioner measuring 4' x 11' is however the exclusive ownership of the present petitioner. The site‑plan signed by both the parties is enclosed marked as "AA"; (iii) the rest of the entire residential accommodation along with the small shop shall vest in favour of present petitioner". It is further stated that respondent No. 1 has undertaken not to interfere in the residential accommodation and shop transferred to Syed Ali Abbas (deceased) now represented by his widow Mst. Murtazai Begum. The application is also signed by the learned Advocates‑on‑Record for both the parties. The agreement seems to be quite lawful, apparently there is nothing to take exception to it. The present petition is disposed of in terms of the compromise as embodied in the relevant application. Petition dismissed.