2008 PLP 1635 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL — Petitioner Versus Mst. MUSARRAT BEGUM — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1635 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AFZAL — Petitioner Versus Mst. MUSARRAT BEGUM — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1635 (CLC)?
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 1635 (CLC)?
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: 2008 PLP 1635 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD AFZAL — Petitioner Versus Mst. MUSARRAT BEGUM — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Iqbal Hussain Shah Gillani, for Petitioner.
- Shakeel Ahmad Bhatti for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 10
Recovery of possession without declaration
Plaintiff sought recovery of possession without declaration, on the ground that she inherited the suit property
Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff
Lower Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court
Plea raised by defendant was that suit for possession without seeking declaration was not maintainable
Held, suit for possession without seeking declaration was not maintainable
High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, set aside the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below
Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL AHMAD, J.
Respondent filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction of house mentioned in para.1 of the plaint claiming that she became the owner of said house under inheritance from her father and thereafter the same was constructed by her husband from his own funds. The suit was contested by petitioner who also filed an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint and claimed that house was owned by Bashir Ahmad and his sons and they had constructed the same and respondent had no concern with the said house. The learned Civil Judge on the pleading of the parties framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the house? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPP (3) Whether the plaintiff has not come into the Court with clean hands? OPD (4) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD (5) Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C.? (6) Whether the defendant is entitled to special cost under section 35-A, C.P.C.? OPD (7) Relief. The suit of the respondent was decreed vide judgment and decree, dated 6-5-2005. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree, dated 24-4-2008. Hence, this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that suit for possession without seeking declaration was not maintainable and as such the decree could not be passed. Reliance has been placed on the case of Muhammad Aslam v. Mst. Feroz and others PLD 2001 SC 213 and also stated that the judgments and decrees of the lower Courts are result of misreading or non-reading of evidence.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent has entered appearance and has vehemently opposed the petition and stated that the suit for possession without seeking declaration is maintainable. I am afraid in view of the law laid down by the august Supreme Court as mentioned in para.2 suit for possession without seeking declaration is not maintainable. The contention of the respondent is misconceived. For the foregoing reasons this petition is accepted and order of the learned Courts below are set aside. A.M.R./M-315/L Revision allowed.