1998 PLP 405 (SCMR)
RASHID AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Communication (Communication Division), Islamabad and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 405 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Zia Mahmood Mirza and Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan, JJ |
| Parties | RASHID AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Communication (Communication Division), Islamabad and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 405 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 405 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Zia Mahmood Mirza and Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 405 (SCMR) (RASHID AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Communication (Communication Division), Islamabad and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Kh. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th March, 1997.
- Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Kh. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore . High Court, Lahore, dated 31‑10‑1996 passed in Civil Revision No.2170 of 1990). ‑‑‑‑O.VII, R. II‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185‑‑‑Rejection of plaint wherein petitioner had challenged vires of sale‑deed, whereby property in question was purchased by respondent (Bank) and claimed that he was entitled to transfer of the same‑‑‑High Court maintained order of rejection of plaint‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Petitioner's claim that property in question was "enemy property" and he being in occupation of same was entitled to the allotment of such property, was not borne out on record‑‑‑No record was produced by petitioner in support of his contention that such property was "enemy property" and had been treated so, by Custodian of Enemy Properties‑‑‑Petitioner admitted that he had never submitted any application to Custodian of Enemy Properties or any other Authority seeking transfer of same in his possession under relevant scheme‑‑‑Such admission knocked out case of petitioner completely‑‑‑Petitioner, therefore, had no cause of action to institute suit‑‑‑Trial Court was, thus, fully justified to bury at inception still born suit so that no further time was consumed in fruitless litigation‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J.
This petition is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 31-10-1996 whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner alongwith other revision petitions was dismissed maintaining the order passed by the learned Civil Judge rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.
2. The petitioner who is statedly occupant of Flat No.7 of property commonly known-as S-19-R-57 Melagan Road, Lahore, filed a suit challenging the vires of the sale-deed dated 29-6-1963 whereby the property was purchased by National Bank of Pakistan respondent No.2/defendant, and claimed that lie was entitled to transfer of the property.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid property was declared enemy property' after the war of September, 1965 and under a Scheme issued by the Federal Government, the petitioner is entitled to seek transfer of the Flat in his possession.
4. Learned Judge of the High Court, after perusing various documents and the applicable laws recorded the conclusion that the property which originally belonged to Punjab Bank ceased to be the property of the said Bank and vested in the respondent Bank much before 6-9-1965 when India attacked Pakistan. The said property was neither part of the 'enemy property' nor was treated as such by the Custodian of Enemy Properties at any point of time. The learned Judge further held that, in the circumstances, the petitioner has no cause of action.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out anything from the record from which he could urge that the property was ever treated as 'enemy property' by the Custodian of Enemy Properties. He also conceded that he had not ever submitted any application to the Custodian of Enemy Properties or any other Authority seeking transfer of the Flat in his possession under the relevant Scheme, if any. This admission knocks out the case of the petitioner completely. He had obviously no cause of action to institute the suit. The learned Civil Judge was, therefore, fully justified to burry at inception the still born suit so that no further time is consumed in the fruitless litigation.
6. The petition is without merit. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and the petition is dismissed. A.A./R-2/S Leave refused.