1994 PLP 1792 (MLD)
GHULAM QADIR — Petitioner Versus NAWAB DIN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1792 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM QADIR — Petitioner Versus NAWAB DIN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1792 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1792 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1792 (MLD) (GHULAM QADIR — Petitioner Versus NAWAB DIN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- G.H. Khan for Petitioner.
- Ch. Muhammad Hussain for Respondent No.1.
- 4. Admittedly, the petitioner is in physical possession of the disputed land in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 28-8-1989. The question as to who is legally entitled either to obtain possession or remain in occupation of the land can appropriately be decided by the Civil Court after recording evidence of the parties. The leaned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 has no objection if the impugned order dated 1-8-1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is set aside and the appellate Court directed to decide the appeal expeditiously within a short period.
Headnotes / Summary
S.145
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Constitutional petition, Magistrate in view of the matter being sub judice before Civil Court drop the proceedings under S.145, Cr.P.C.-Sessions Court in revision directo restoration of possession of the land to respondent by means of the impugned order
Petitioner admittedly was in physical possession of the disputed land is pursuance of the order passed by High Court
Question as to who was legally entitled either to obtain possession or remain in occupation of the land could appropriately be decided by the Civil Court after recording evidence of the parties
Respondent, however, had no objection if the said order of the Sessions Court was set aside with the direction to Appellate Court to decide the appeal expeditiously within a short period
Impugned order of the Sessions Court was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect in the circumstances with the direction to Appellate Court to decide the appeal within a period of two months.
Judgment & Decree
Through this Constitutional petition the petitioner has assailed the legality of the order dated 1-8-1989 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, directing that possession of the suit property be handed over to Nawab Din respondent No. 1.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the land measuring l20 Kanals was allotted to Lal Din father of the petitioner. The allottee appointed Nawab Din, respondent No.1 as his general attorney to manage the land.0 power of attorney was subsequently cancelled in the year 1971. On the spot the land was being cultivated through tenants. After the death of the petitioner father the petitioner tried to obtain share of produce of the land which led toy dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.
1. Resultantly proceedings under section 145 of the Cr.P.C. were initiated at the instance of the petitioner in which the Assistant Commissioner passed an order appointing a Superdar managing the land. The said order was challenged in revision which was accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 3p1989. He set aside the order regarding appointment of the Superdar. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Civil Court which was dismissed for non-prosecution and the application for restoration of the suit was also dismissed. At present, an appeal against the dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution is pending in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, 0104. 3,
3. Keeping in view the fact that the matter was sub judice before the civil Court, the learned A.C. dropped the proceedings under section 145 of the Cr.p.C. the order passed by the A.C. in this respect was challenged by respondent No. 1 by way of revision in which the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed the impugned order directing restoration of possession to Nawab pin, respondent No. 1.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner is in physical possession of the disputed land in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 28-8-1989. The question as to who is legally entitled either to obtain possession or remain in occupation of the land can appropriately be decided by the Civil Court after recording evidence of the parties. The leaned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 has no objection if the impugned order dated 1-8-1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is set aside and the appellate Court directed to decide the appeal expeditiously within a short period.
5. In this view of the matter, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 1-8-1989 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. I am informed that the appeal is pending in the Court of Mr. Saif?ur-Rehman, Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, and is fixed for hearing on 16-11-1992.
6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to decide the appeal on the date already fixed or on any other date within a period of two months. The petition is allowed with the above direction, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. N.H.Q./G-219/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.