2002 PLP 1981 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE alias RAFIQUE AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAMEED and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1981 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, Actg. C.J. and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE alias RAFIQUE AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAMEED and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1981 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1981 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, Actg. C.J. and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1981 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE alias RAFIQUE AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAMEED and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th February, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 15‑1‑2002 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No.4047 of 1989). (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 8 & 9‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115‑‑‑Suit for recovery of possession on the basis of title‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Suit for recovery of possession under S.9, Specific Relief Act, 1877, was dismissed ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Plaintiff was not debarred from filing the suit on the basis of title if he had failed to get relief under S.9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877‑‑‑Suit on the basis of title was maintainable in circumstances. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 8 & 9‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 185(3)‑‑‑Constitutional petition before High Court‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑During pendency of suit for specific performance on the basis of title the Appellate Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under S.115, C.P.C., decreed the suit filed under S.9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877‑‑‑Judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were set aside by High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under S.199 of the Constitution‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Where the plaintiff failed to get relief under S.9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, he was not debarred from filing suit on the basis of title and recovery of possession‑‑ Interference by the Appellate Court by decreeing the suit was neither proper nor sustainable in law, therefore, Constitutional petition filed by the petitioner was maintainable‑‑‑Judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court was without lawful authority in circumstances. Mst. Majeedan‑through Legal Heirs and another v. Muhammad Naseem through Legal Heirs and another 2001 SCMR 345 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, ACTG. C.J.‑‑‑On the basis of agreement of sale dated 31‑5‑1967 allegedly executed by Nazir Ahmad, the transferee of the property, the respondent on 26‑3‑1975 filed a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act for recovery of possession of the shop alleging that though the possession of the said shop had been delivered to him by the said vendor under the said agreement of sale but he was illegally dispossessed within six months from the date of filing of the said suit. It was contested by Nazir Ahmad and dismissed through judgment dated 5‑1‑1980 by the trial Court.
2. A revision petition was filed against this judgment by Nazir Ahmad in which the petitioners were impleaded as respondents they having alleged that subsequently Nazir Ahmad transferred 1/2 share in the shop to them through registered sale‑deed. The petitioner is the brother of Nazir Ahmad.
3. On the other hand, on 25‑9‑1980, the respondent Abdul Majeed filed suit for specific performance of the said agreement of sale in which a decree was also prayed for, for the delivery of possession of the property to him on the basis of title after the execution of sale‑deed, therefore, according, to learned counsel for the petitioner, there was no legal justification for pursuing the remedy in revision petition under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, for it is provided in law that in a case, the plaintiff fails to get relief under section 9 of the Act, he was not debarred from filing suit on the basis of title and recovery of possession of the property and he having filed the said suit, interference made by the District Court under section
115. C.P.C. through judgment, dated 5‑1‑1980 by decreeing the suit was neither legally proper nor sustainable in law, therefore, Constitutional petition filed by the petitioner if viewed from this angle was maintainable as in that case, the judgment of the District Court in revision would be without lawful authority. It has been brought to our notice that the said suit for specific performance is still pending in which the present petitioner has also been impleaded as one of the defendants. Reliance has been placed on the judgment in the case of Late Mst. Majeedan through Legal Heirs and another v. Late Muhammad Naseem through Legal Heirs and another (2001 SCMR 345).
5. In the meantime, execution of decree, dated 25‑6‑1989 shall remain stayed in that possession of the petitioner over the shop in dispute shall not be disturbed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑378/S Order accordingly.