2015 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
RUKHSANA ASIF and others Versus GOVERNMENT and others
| Citation | 2015 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar High Court |
| Bench Members | Waqar Ahmad Seth, J |
| Parties | RUKHSANA ASIF and others Versus GOVERNMENT and others |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2015 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2015 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar High Court bench comprising: Waqar Ahmad Seth, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2015 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (RUKHSANA ASIF and others Versus GOVERNMENT and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Yasir Zahoor Abbasi for Petitioners.
- M. Naeem Abbasi, A.A.-G. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th October, 2014.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 42, 12 & 54
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11
Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and in alternate for retaining the possession of the premises
Application for rejection of suit
Appointment of son of deceased/plaintiff in government service against deceased son quota
Retention in official accommodation by the son/daughter of the deceased employee on the basis of changed policy
Parental jurisdiction of civil court in changed circumstances
Scope
Disclosure of new facts, which required recording of evidence
Effect
Predecessor-in-interest of petitioners being a government servant was allotted the house in question and during his life time filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and in alternate the possession of the suit quarter as the authorities were trying to dispossess the government servant under the garb of new policy
Authorities filed written statement and application for rejection of plaint, which was allowed
Appellate court maintained the judgment and decree passed by the trial court by granting 15 days for vacating the house, which culminated into filing of revision petition by the petitioners
New facts were placed on the file of revision petition, but not placed on record of the plaint, which required recording of evidence
Held, that civil court in changed circumstances had the alternate jurisdiction and it was the duty of the civil court to thrash out the dispute and rights of the citizens/government servants in a parental way and not in a summary way
High Court, in view of changed policy remanded the case to the trial court for recording of evidence
Judgment & Decree
WAQAR AHMAD SETH, J.
This revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14-6-2014, whereby learned appellate Court disposed of the appeal of petitioners by giving period of 15 days for vacating the quarter in question by maintaining the judgment and decree of trial court dated 28-4-2014.
2. Muhammad Asif, the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and in alternate for retaining the possession of the suit quarter against the respondents. The respondents appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement and they also filed application for rejection of plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. The learned trial court on acceptance of application of respondents dismissed the suit on 28-4-2014. The petitioner preferred appeal and learned appellate court passed the impugned judgment, hence the instant revision petition.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. There is no denial of the fact that Muhammad Asif, the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners, was a government servant and was allotted the suit quarter but during life time filed a suit for perpetual injunction declaration and in alternate the possession of the suit quarter as respondents were trying to get dispossess the government servants under the garb of new policy notification dated 1-6-2000. The respondents/defendants filed written statement and along with the same filed an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C.
5. Admittedly, the son of deceased/plaintiff has been appointed against deceased son quota, which is 100% vide appointment order dated 14-12-2013 in BPS-7 as Junior Clerk. According to Government notification dated 20-2-1992, where deceased allottee son/daughter in service is allowed to retain the accommodation, subject to his/her entitlement.
6. It is also brought on record that widow of said deceased allottee/plaintiff is also civil servant and is posted within District Abbottabad.
7. All these facts are on the file of this revision petition but, not annexed with the plaint, thus requires recording of evidence. In these changed circumstances Civil Court is having the alternate jurisdiction and having no other alternate remedy, it is the duty of the civil court to thrash out the dispute and rights of the citizens government servants in a parental way and not in a summary way.
8. This court, in view of changed policy dated 1-6-2010 remanded number of cases to the trial court for recording of evidence hence, the instant one is also remanded to the trial court for framing of issues on the points raised above, record evidence in this respect, without commenting on the remarks of appellate court as the same were recorded in absence of the counsel. Parties are directed to appear before Civil Judge-IX, Abbottabad on 7-11-2014. The trial court is further directed to decide the lis within three months positively.
9. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. SA/476/P Case remanded.