1998 PLP 695 (SCMR)
Hafiz MEHBOOB ELAHI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SALEH AFZAL KHAN‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998 PLP 695 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan and Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, JJ |
| Parties | Hafiz MEHBOOB ELAHI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SALEH AFZAL KHAN‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 695 (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 695 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan and Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 695 (SCMR) (Hafiz MEHBOOB ELAHI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SALEH AFZAL KHAN‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Kowkab Iqbal, Advocate‑on‑Record authorized by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent
- Date of hearing: 9th July, 1995.
- M. Kowkab Iqbal, Advocate-on-Record authorized by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the Order dated 9‑3‑1995 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, in C.R. No. 48 of 1995). ‑‑‑‑S. 2(12)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Suit for possession and mesne profits, in respect of house in question‑‑‑Suit was decreed by Trial Court as also by First Appellate Court‑‑‑High Court in revision suspended operation of impugned judgments‑‑‑Possession of house in question, meanwhile, had passed to plaintiff as a result of execution of decrees of Courts below‑‑‑High Court directed plaintiff to hand over vacant possession of house to defendant‑‑ Validity‑‑‑High Court while admitting revision had stayed operation of impugned judgment and decrees‑‑‑Issuance of order for dispossession of defendant from the house in question, on basis of decrees, on the face of it was legal‑‑‑High Court had issued direction to plaintiff to hand over vacant possession of house to defendant; such order could not be deemed to be wrong‑‑‑Plaintiff's request for direction to High Court for early disposal of revision was accepted and direction was issued by Supreme Court to High Court for disposal of revision immediately after summer vacations‑‑‑Leave to appeal was, however refused in circumstances. 1983 SCMR 643 and 1968 SCMR 160 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, J.
The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 9-3-1995 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi.
2. The petitioner filed suit for possession and mesne profits in respect of a House in Islamabad against the respondent in the Court of Civil Judge. Islamabad. He filed written statement. Issues were framed accordingly. The parties led evidence. However, on 11-12-1994 the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. The respondent filed appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad, who on 16-2-1995 dismissed it. The respondent filed revision petition before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi On 23-2-1995 the revision was admitted for regular hearing. Besides, it suspended the operation of the impugned judgments. In spite of stay order the Civil Judge issued warrant for taking over possession of the house from the petitioner with the help of police. On 23-2-1995 the petitioner was ousted from the house. The violation of the stay, order was brought to the notice of the High Court, who on 9-3-1995 after hearing the parties directed the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the house to the respondent. Against the above said order the petitioner has come before this Court.
3. Mr. M. Kowkab Iqbai, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that besides possession of the premises a decree for money was also passed in the favour of the petitioner, but the revisional/appellate Courts without ordering for depositing of the decretal amount entertained revision/appeal and granted stay He contended that the stay order in respect of decree regarding money was illegal. He relied upon the cases reported in 1983 SCMR 643 and 1968 SCMR 160.
4. However, we have perused the record 'of the case and the judgments passed by the three Courts below. It is admitted position that while admitting the revision petition, the High Court had stayed the operation of the impugned judgments and decrees. Issuance of the writ for dispossession of the respondent from the house on face of it is legal. In such view of the fact, the learned High Court had issued direction to the petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the house. There is nothing wrong with the impugned order. However, in the situation, as such, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested that the High Court may be directed to dispose of the revision petition without further delay. There is substance in his contention. In the circumstances discussed herein above, there is no merit in the petition which is dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused. However, the High Court is directed to dispose of the revision petition filed by the respondent immediately after the summer vacation. A.A./M-92/S Leave refused.