1986 PLP 816 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
| Citation | 1986 PLP 816 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakurul Salam, J' |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 816 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 816 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Shakurul Salam, J'.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 816 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Abdullah for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 .and 3.
- Kh. Muhammad Fsrooq for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 23rd December, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑Art. 199‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑Violation of status quo order‑ Effect‑‑Person obtaining stay order and then violating same by transferring disputed property, held, was not only liable for violating such order but petition filed by such person in which stay order was obtained becomes liable to dismissal.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner filed the above‑titled Constitutional petition. It was admitted to regular hearing and status quo order was granted on 28‑5‑1975. The contesting respondent No.2 filed Civil Miscellaneous No. 2/80 in the aforesaid writ petition and stated in para. 5 that "Muhammad Hussain (petitioner) transferred the ownership of the disputed land through Mutation No.44, dated 5‑9‑1979 in the name of Muhammad Ali son of Gaman, Muhammad Hayat son of Saee Muhammad, Mst. Maqsood Begum daughter of Saee Muhammad and Ahman, Rehman, Saee sons of Hayat."
2. From this it is quite clear that after obtaining status quo order the petitioner has violated the same by transferring the property in dispute. It is established law by now that a person who obtains a stay order and transfers the property is not only liable for violating the order obtained by him but his petition also becomes liable to be dismissed. Taking of action for violating the status quo order is not called for in the circumstances of the case because the petitioner was purchaser of the land in dispute and it would not be in the interest of administration of justice. However, the petition is clearly liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. A . A . Petition dismissed.