1989 PLP 1994 (SCMR)
GHULAM MOHYUDDIN Petitioner Versus ABDULLAH represented by Legal Heirs Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1994 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM MOHYUDDIN Petitioner Versus ABDULLAH represented by Legal Heirs Respondent |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1994 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1994 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1994 (SCMR) (GHULAM MOHYUDDIN Petitioner Versus ABDULLAH represented by Legal Heirs Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Abdur Rai hid, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record (since dead) for Petitioner.
- Rana M. A. Oadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.1 to 6.
- Date of hearing: 12th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 22nd December, 1980in Regular Second Appeal No.819 of 1967). ‑‑‑S.55‑‑Constitution of Pak1stan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Suit for mandatory' injunction against defendant decreed by Trial Court, which finding was upheld in first and second appeals‑‑Plaintiff's plea in suit was that defendant should demolish the house and remove the debris constructed on a portion of a particular part of Shamilat Deh‑‑Defendant's assertion that on that particular land a mosque and houses of some other people had been constructed and that on the remaining part of land his house should be allowed to remain as said Shamilat on which same had been constructed was no longer being put to common else of the village, and was thus subject to partition like the rest of Shamilat Deh‑‑Such argument having been raised earlier was properly attended to by the High Court‑ No interference was thus called for in the impugned judgment of High Courta‑Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑Learned counsel for the petitioner Ghulam Mohyuddin submits that the petitioner has died. However notwithstanding his death we proceed to hear this petition for leave which is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 22nd December, 1980. Briefly the facts are that the respondent filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the petitioner that he should demolish his house and remove the debris constructed on a portion of a particular Khasra number which constituted part of Shamlat Deh. The land in dispute over which respondent had raised the construction was a part of a Talah (pond). According to the revenue record the pond in question was consistently declared for the common use of the village. Since this is the position the Senior Civil Judge, Jhelum decreed the suit of the respondents and the judgment of the Senior Civil Judge was affirmed in appeal by the District Judge, Jhelum. The R.S.A. of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that in the circumstances of the case the discretion exercised by the Courts below in ordering the demolition of the petitioner's house was quite proper and valid. Learned counsel for the petitioner before us attempted to argue that the total area of the Talab was 3 Kanals 13 Marlas out of which on 1 Kanal 5 Marlas ex1sts a mosque and on another 1 Kanal 15 Marlas houses have been constructed by other people. In other words it is claimed on his behalf that on the remaining 13 Marlas of the said land his construction should have been allowed to remain as actually no pond is in existence on the site at present, and that therefore it could not be considered as pond for common use of the village (i.e. being Mufeed‑e- Aam) and that consequently it was subject to partition like the rest of Shamlat Deh. These arguments have been raised earlier and properly attended to by the learned Judge of the High Court. After hearing the learned counsel at some length in our view no interference is called for in the impugned order of the High Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. A.A./G‑204/S Petition dismissed.