2008 PLP 33 (YLR)
Mst. RAZIA BIBI — Petitioner Versus ALI SHER and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 33 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J |
| Parties | Mst. RAZIA BIBI — Petitioner Versus ALI SHER and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 33 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 33 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 33 (YLR) (Mst. RAZIA BIBI — Petitioner Versus ALI SHER and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shahid Mobeen for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.
On 14-1-1996 the respondents Nos.1 to 10 filed a suit against the petitioner and the remaining respondents. According to the plaint, the parties were owners of the Ihata mentioned in the suit. It was further stated that the petitioner's share comes to 6 Marlas 6 Sarsais whereas the share of the defendants is 8 Marlas. It was then stated that a private partition was effected and the parties were in possession according to the same having raised construction. Some time back, the partition wall collapsed. This has again resulted into a scramble for the land reserved for passage. A decree for separate possession by partition was accordingly prayed for. The petitioner, who is defendant No.5 in the suit, in her written statement took objection that earlier the said plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession, which had been dismissed. The joint ownership of the Ihata mentioned in the plaint was also not denied and rather it was stated that the parties are in joint possession since 1947. She, however, denied the factum of the private partition. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on I2-5-1999. A first appeal filed by the plaintiffs was allowed by learned ADJ, Summandari, District Faisalabad, who for all purposes passed a preliminary decree and also directed the manner in which the partition was to be effected yet he proceeded to remand the case vide order dated 30-1-2003 directing the learned trial Court to pass a preliminary decree on 16-6-2003 and, of course, no appeal was filed against this preliminary decree. Final, decree was passed on 3-1-2004. Against this decree, a first appeal filed by the petitioner and the other respondents was dismissed on 22-12-2004.
2. In the above noted background, the learned counsel is' arguing that the plaintiffs had no title in the Ihata and as such a decree could not have been passed in their favour. The respondent No.1 present in person is praying for dismissal of the civil revision.
3. I have noted above the history of the case and its proceedings. Apart from the fact that there was no denial of title of the plaintiff's in the joint property, as noted by me above, neither the remand order passed on 30-1-2003 was challenged nor any appeal was filed against the preliminary decree dated 16-6-2003 passed by the learned trial Court in compliance with the remand order. Section 97, C.P.C. is fully attracted which debars a person from questioning the preliminary decree in appeal from final decree, when no appeal against the .preliminary decree has been filed. The civil revision is found to be wholly frivolous and is dismissed but without any orders as to costs. H.B.T./R-36/L Revision dismissed.