1984 PLP 1554 (SCMR)
Dr. ABDUR REHMAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus ALLAH DITTA and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1554 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | Dr. ABDUR REHMAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus ALLAH DITTA and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1554 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1554 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1554 (SCMR) (Dr. ABDUR REHMAN and others‑‑Petitioners Versus ALLAH DITTA and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate Supreme Court with Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 7th February, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 21st January, 1981, in Cr. P. No.6/78/BWP/C.R. 650/77/LHR). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 185 (3)‑‑ Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 5.115‑‑Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.53‑A, proviso‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Granted to consider (i) whether in circumstances of ca‑a conditions of S.115, C.P.C. were satisfied for exercise of revisional jurisdiction by High Court; (il) whether petitioner's case was covered by proviso to S.53‑A, Transfer of Property Act and (iii) what was effect of non‑registration, of sale documents in respondent's favour.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑ After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal inter alia to consider the following questions:‑‑ (a) whether in the circumstances of the case the conditions of section 115, C.P.C. were satisfied for exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court; (b) whether the petitioners' case is covered by the proviso to section 53‑A of the Transfer of Property Act; (c) what is the effect of non‑registration of sale documents in favour of Allah Ditta respondent and of absence of any documentation between the owner and the petitioners regarding the 99 year alleged lease, at the time when the possession was said to have been transferred to the petitioners (long before the formal documentation and registration); and (d) in case the revisional jurisdiction could be exercised whether the conclusions reached and the inferences drawn by the HIS Court are correct. Accordingly leave to appeal is granted. Security Rs.2,
000. S.Q. Leave granted