2008 PLP 876 (SCMR)
NATHO and others — Petitioners Versus MIRCHU RAM and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 876 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari, Zia Perwez and Syed Zawwar Hussain Jaffery, JJ |
| Parties | NATHO and others — Petitioners Versus MIRCHU RAM and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 876 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 876 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari, Zia Perwez and Syed Zawwar Hussain Jaffery, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 876 (SCMR) (NATHO and others — Petitioners Versus MIRCHU RAM and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Suleman Habibullah Advocate-on-Record/Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Syed Sahahanshah Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 23rd January, 2008.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 16-12-2005 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi passed in C.R.A. No.246 of 2000).
Ss. 42 & 54
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Suit for declaration and injunction
High Court, after perusal of the record and examining merits thereof, set aside order of appellate court below and decreed suit
Impugned order being based on sound and legal principles, did not call for any interference
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. [p. 877] A
Judgment & Decree
ZIA PERWEZ, J.
The petitioners seek leave to appeal against judgment, dated 16-12-2005 of the learned Single Judge in Chambers, High Court of Sindh, Karachi allowing Civil Revision Application No.246 of 2000, whereby Suit No.19 of 1994 was decreed in favour of the respondents.
2. The respondents instituted suit for declaration and injunction with respect to Sikni plot admeasuring 2700 sq. ft. at Darro, Taluka Mirpur Bathoro, inherited by them and illegally encroached by the petitioner and after his death by his sons-in-law after his death. The ground taken in defence was that the disputed plot fall in Katchi Abadi and was notified as such. The only evidence produced to substantiate his contention was the notification declaring certain area to be Katchi Abadi. However, no evidence was adduced to show that the disputed plot was located with the notified area so as to deprive the respondents of their ownership of the plot.
3. In this view of the matter, the learned Single Judge of the High Court after perusal of the record and examining the merits thereof, set aside the order of the appellate Court and decreed the Suit No.19 of 1994 in favour of the respondents. The impugned order being based on sound and legal principles does not call for any interference.
4. Consequently, this petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. H.B.T./N-1/SC Leave refused.