2006 PLP 1488 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and 2 others — Petitioners Versus ZAFAR SAEED and 14 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1488 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and 2 others — Petitioners Versus ZAFAR SAEED and 14 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1488 (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 2006 PLP 1488 (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: 2006 PLP 1488 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and 2 others — Petitioners Versus ZAFAR SAEED and 14 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Muhammad Nawaz for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents. Proceeded against ex parte.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 8
High Court (Lahore) Rules, and Orders Vol. I, Part M, Chap. 1-Suit for possession
Defendants had impugned concurrent decrees of Courts below, whereby suit filed by plaintiffs seeking possession of disputed property, had been decreed
Both Courts below, while decreeing the suit had relied on report prepared by Tehsildar as Local Commission
Report of Local Commission did not conform with 'the requirements of Chapter 1 Part. M Volume I of High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders
Report of Local Commission, co-ordinates for the purpose of identifying land in dispute, were taken from a metalled road, but there was no indication at all, that co-ordinates, required by High Court Rules were first fixed with the object of preparing the report
Failure of Local Commission to comply with High Court Rules, had rendered his report worthless as a piece of evidence
Said report was set aside; since it was the duty of plaintiffs to prove that defendants were occupying the land belonging to them, it was incumbent upon plaintiffs to produce evidence in support of their claim
Defendants were in occupation of 2 Marlas out of disputed land
Decrees of Courts below were modified accordingly
Suit of plaintiffs to the extent of land measuring 2 Marlas, which was in possession of defendants, was dismissed
Decrees of Courts below, however were maintained in respect of remaining plaintiffs.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
The case has been called. None has appeared for the respondents. They are, therefore, proceeded against ex parte.
2. The petitioners/defendants impugn the concurrent decrees of the learned trial Court dated 14-4-1991 and of the learned appellate Court dated 10-10-1991 whereby a suit filed by the plaintiffs (respondents Nos.l to 4 herein) seeking possession of the disputed property in all, measuring 1 Kanal, 9 Marlas, has been decreed.
3. Both Courts below, while decreeing the suit of the respondents/ plaintiffs, have relied on the report (Exh.P.3) dated 11-3-1990 prepared by the Tehsildar Jhang as Local Commission. The Tehsildar appeared as P.W.3 to prove the report.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the report does not conform with the requirements of Chapter 1, Part M. Volume I of the High Court Rules and Orders. On this basis, it is argued that reliance on the report (Exh.P.3) was an error on the part of the learned Courts below. This submission is correct. I have gone through the report and note therein that the coordinates for the purpose of identifying the land in dispute, were taken from a metalled road, but there is no indication, at all, that the coordinates, required by the High Court Rules, were first fixed with the object of preparing the report. Learned counsel further contends that the failure of the Tehsildar to comply with the High Court Rules, rendered the report worthless as a piece of evidence. Even otherwise, when the Tehsildar appeared as P.W.3, he was not in a position to state whether there was a 15' wide passage on the disputed Khasra numbers and whether the same had been calculated by him in the share of the defendants. This testimony also "undermines the evidentiary value of the report (Exh.P.3).
5. In the above circumstances, the report (Exh.P.3) is set aside. Since it was the duty of the respondents/plaintiffs to prove that the petitioners were occupying the land belonging to them, it was incumbent upon them to produce evidence in support of their claim. Here it may be noted that the petitioners are in occupation of 2 Marlas out of the disputed land. Only they have impugned the decrees of the learned Courts below. The other defendants, who are respondents Nos.5 to 15 in this petition, have not challenged the impugned decrees. In the circumstances, the decrees of the learned Courts below are modified. Consequently, the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs to the extent of land measuring 2 Marlas, which is in the possession of the present petitioners, is dismissed. The decrees of the learned Courts below, however, are maintained in respect of the remaining defendants (respondents Nos.5 to 15). H.B.T./M-111/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.