P L D 1966 W (PLP)
Sh. NOOR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ZAMAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | Sh. NOOR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ZAMAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1966 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1966 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1966 W (PLP) (Sh. NOOR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ZAMAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Gohar Rehman and Said Muhammad for Petitioners.
- Abdur Rashid for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Practice‑Two suits, one in Revenue Court and other in Civil Court, pending between same parties regarding, same matter- Proceedings in Revenue Court be stayed.
Judgment & Decree
Gohar Rehman and Said Muhammad for Petitioners. Abdur Rashid for Respondents. This is a revision filed against the order, dated the 13th of February 1965, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) who while exercising the powers of Commissioner, set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade and directed that proceedings of ejectment be stayed pending the decision of the Civil Court on the question of title. The facts of the case are that the petitioner brought a suit for the ejectment of the respondents, who denied that there existed any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and stated that they had already filed a Civil suit for the determination of the question of title. It was prayed that proceedings in the Revenue Court might be stayed. This request was rejected by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. The respondents filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner who passed the order mentioned above. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. So far as the direction for instituting within the prescribed period, a suit in the Civil Court is concerned, the provisions of section 70 of the N.‑W. F. P. Tenancy Act 1950 are quite clear. There is no provision, however, which would be directly applicable to cases where a civil suit in the Civil Court had already been filed. In this particular case I find that one party had gone to a Revenue Court and the other party has instituted a suit in a Civil Court. Before both the Courts, the matter for determination is the same and it is between the same parties. Even if the revenue Court was allowed to proceed with the case and give a decision, this decision would be subject to modification by a decree of a Civil Court if it was in different terms. It is, therefore, only appropriate that the parties should be saved from the expenses of fighting their case in the Revenue Court when the same matter is sub judice before the Civil Court, and the proceedings in the Revenue Court should be stayed. The learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that it will not be possible for him to claim any rent from the respondents in case proceedings in the Revenue Court are stayed. In this particular case I find that the petitioner did not claim any arrears of rent. If they had done so, a condition could be laid down that proceedings in the Revenue Court shall be stayed only if the amount claimed by the petitioner as arrears of rent was deposited in the treasury. Since, however, the petitioners, have not claimed arrears of rent, such a direction is not possible. In these circumstances the revision fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.