2009 PLP 510 (MLD)
ABDUL MUJEEB PATEL — Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS HOUSING AUTHORITY through Administrator and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 510 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL MUJEEB PATEL — Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS HOUSING AUTHORITY through Administrator and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 510 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 510 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 510 (MLD) (ABDUL MUJEEB PATEL — Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS HOUSING AUTHORITY through Administrator and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mumtaz Ahmed Shaikh for Petitioner.
- Khalid Mehmood for Respondent. No.1.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Petition involved a dispute where the Authority was not entertaining a purported transfer of plot in favour of petitioner on the ground .that the transferor of said plot was not made available for doing the needful
Authority had further maintained that the purported 'transfer papers allegedly executed in 1975 were submitted not earlier than 1990
Contention of the petitioner was that a power of attorney was executed by the purported transferor in favour of brother of the petitioner
Authority had alleged that executant of said power of attorney did not present himself in the office of the Authority
Petitioner in relation to the address of alleged executant of power of attorney, had provided only the address of his own brother which was highly irregular
Taking a lenient view of the matter, the petitioner was required to provide the address of the alleged transferor himself
Such address was though provided, but that person was not served
Petitioner, in the interest of justice, was permitted by High Court to file fresh petition as and when proper address of the executant would be available.
Judgment & Decree
This order would read in conjunction with the other orders passed by the Court in this petition. The petitioner involves a dispute where the respondent No.1 Authority is not entertaining a purported transfer in favour of the petitioner of a plot falling within the limits of such authority on the ground that the transferor is not made available for doing the needful. The authority, apparently, further maintains that the purported transfer papers allegedly executed in 1975 were submitted not earlier than 1990 and, therefore, the procedure adopted by the authority, which is a consistent one, was rightly adopted. From his side, Mr. Mumtaz Ahmed Shaikh, maintains that a power of attorney was executed by the purported transferor, the respondent No.2, in favour of the petitioner's brother and such power of attorney was registered by the Defence Housing Authority. As to this, Mr. Khalid Mehmod says that even at such time the executant of the power of attorney did not present himself in the office of the authority. This petition is pending at the Katcha peshi level since 13-11-1995. In the first place it was found that the petitioner in relation to the address of the respondent No.2 at the outset provided only address of his own brother, namely the attorney purportedly constituted as above. This was highly irregular and the fact was noticed at the time of one of the hearings. Taking a lenient view of the matter, the petitioner was required to provide the address of the alleged transferor himself. Such address was provided but that person has not been served so far. Mr. Shaikh does not even know as to why he has not so far been served. Perusing the record we have found that service could not be effected on him because he was not found at that address and in the process at least three attempts to serve were made. In the circumstances, we can take a serious view of the above but, in the interest of justice, only dismiss the matters are Sr. Nos. 1 and 2 at the same time permitting the petitioner to file a fresh petition as and when proper address of the respondent No.2 is available. Order accordingly. H.B.T./A-3/K Order accordingly.