1983 PLP 20 (SCMR)
MAULA BAKHSH ETC.-Petitioners Versus Mst. BUSHRA KHATOON ETC.-Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 20 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ----Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal-Contentions that defect in C. H. form curable under para. 7 of Settlement Scheme No. I and Letters Patent Appeal abated due to transferee having died and his legal representatives having not been impleaded for about 6 months-Leave to appeal granted to consider questions.-Leave to appeal. |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and M. S. H. Qureshi, JJ |
| Parties | MAULA BAKHSH ETC.-Petitioners Versus Mst. BUSHRA KHATOON ETC.-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 20 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 20 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ----Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal-Contentions that defect in C. H. form curable under para. 7 of Settlement Scheme No. I and Letters Patent Appeal abated due to transferee having died and his legal representatives having not been impleaded for about 6 months-Leave to appeal granted to consider questions.-Leave to appeal. bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and M. S. H. Qureshi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 20 (SCMR) (MAULA BAKHSH ETC.-Petitioners Versus Mst. BUSHRA KHATOON ETC.-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Aslam Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- S. M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad Sheikh, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Aslam Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 4-10-1981 of the Lahore High Court passed in L. P. A. No. 61 of 1967).
Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal-Contentions that defect in C. H. form curable under para. 7 of Settlement Scheme No. I and Letters Patent Appeal abated due to transferee having died and his legal representatives having not been impleaded for about 6 months-Leave to appeal granted to consider questions.-[Leave to appeal].
Judgment & Decree
M. S. H. QURESHI, J.‑The property in dispute had been transferred in favour of Maula Bakhsh, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the present petitioners, but in revision brought by Bushara Khatoon and Hakim Mehboob Ali, the predecessors‑in‑interest of the present contesting respondents, the transfer was cancelled for the reason that the relevant C. H. Forms filed by Maul Bakhsh did not bear his signature or thumb‑mark and that "he has absolutely no knowledge of the C. H. Forms which are attributed to him." He was, therefore, held not entitled to any part of the property. In the writ petition, which Maula Bakhsh filed to challange the order, the learned Judge came to the view that the defect in form was curable and that the procedure laid down in para. 7 of Scheme No. I should have been followed. He, therefore, quashed the revisional order and upheld the transfer of the property in favour of Maula Bakhsh. Another writ petition brought by the respondent was, for the same reason, dismissed. The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the respondents, however succeeded and, in consequence, the Settlement authorities were directed to transfer the property in favour of the respondents. Hence this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the defect in the C. H. Form Maula Bakhsh was curable under para. 7 of the Scheme No. I as rightly held by the learned Single Judge. Another point raised is of abate ment of the Letters Patent Appeal. In this connection, he points out that Maula Bakhsh had died on 18‑1‑1967 during pendency of the Letters Patent Appeal but the application to implead his legal representatives had been filed on 20‑7‑1967. He, therefore, contends that the Letters Patent Appeal had abated and the statement in the absence of sufficient cause having been shown could not be set aside. The contentions raised require consideration. We accordingly grant leave to appeal, Security Rs. 2,500, Appeal granted.