2007 PLP 1674 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD HAYAT and 20 others — Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Sargodha and 12 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1674 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Maulvi Anwarul Haq and Syed Asghar Haider, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HAYAT and 20 others — Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Sargodha and 12 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1674 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1674 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Maulvi Anwarul Haq and Syed Asghar Haider, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1674 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD HAYAT and 20 others — Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Sargodha and 12 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ziaullah Khan Niazi for Petitioners.
- Mian Muhammad Ashraf for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.
Both the learned counsel state that the impugned proceedings and order passed by this Court on 8-4-2003 in Civil Revision No.2021 of 2003, does suffer from an error apparent on the face of record inasmuch as it was agreed between the parties and even now they adhered to the agreement that the .exchange had been made between the parties in the following manner:-- "One Kanal, 16 Marlas suit-land, as described in the head note of the plaint, was given by the respondents to the petitioners while 19 Marlas of land described in para.4 of the plaint was given by the petitioners to the respondents".
2. According to them, this was the agreement of exchange and the suit was decreed accordingly; and the decree was affirmed by the learned appellate Court. While getting the statements recorded, inadvertently to avoid details, reference was made to report Roznamcha Waqiati whereas it is agreed view of the parties that the said report does not reflect the true state of affairs. Both the learned counsel state that the said agreement of exchange mentioned in para.1 above is the true agreement and both the parties will take steps to get the same implemented in the Revenue Records.
3. We have examined the file of this case in the light of said submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and do find that the error has crept into the said proceedings while recording the said statements. This is also evident from the admission note record by our learned brother Ali Nawaz Chauhan, J, on 23-6-2003 while issuing notice in this R.A.
4. R.A. accordingly is allowed in view of the said statements of both the learned counsel for the parties and it is directed that exchange as entered into between the parties as stated by both the learned counsel for the parties in the manner stated above, shall be implemented in the Revenue Records and both or any of the parties can take proceedings accordingly. No order as to costs. H.B.T./63/L Application allowed.