1991 PLP 1534 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUIE and others — Petitioners Versus RAO MANZOOR AHMAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1534 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUIE and others — Petitioners Versus RAO MANZOOR AHMAD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1534 (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 1991 PLP 1534 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1534 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUIE and others — Petitioners Versus RAO MANZOOR AHMAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shujauddin Hashmi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th September, 1989.
- Shujauddin Hashmi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 11-2-1986, passed in W.P. No.154-R of 1979).
O.I, R.10-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Petitioners contended that they being in physical possession of shops in dispute at relevant time and having already submitted their Forms for transfer of those shops, were necessary parties, but High Court ignored to consider them as an aggrieved party erroneously and dismissed their application for impleading them as party and ordered the allotment of shops to respondents without considering entitlement of petitioners
Case being arguable, needed consideration of Supreme Court, leave to appeal was granted.
Judgment & Decree
S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 11‑2‑1986, whereby the petitioners' writ petition against the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 16‑8‑1976, was dismissed. Rao Abdur Rashid predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 6 was in possession of Chobara of evacuee property No. 80/30, Ward No.2 Khankah Dogran consisting of two shops on the front, Chobara over it and 5 rooms behind the shops. Ghulam Muhammad was in possession of 5 rooms in the rear portion and two shops were originally in possession of Ali Sher and Khushi Muhammad which were taken over by the petitioners in 1965. On the order of the learned Settlement Commissioner dated 16‑8‑1978 the shops were considered as separate units available for disposal. All the parties filed Form C.H. for the allotment of the respective portions in their occupation. After protracted litigations amongst the parties on remand of the case by the High Court to the Settlement Commissioner, it was held that the property is divisible and vide his order dated 16‑8‑1978 transferred the Chobara over the shops and Deori to respondents Nos. i to 6, rear portion of the house being a separate unit was transferred to Ghulam Muhammad and the two shops were declared as separate units available for disposal. Respondents Nos. 1 to 6 filed Writ, Petition No. 154‑R/79 without impleading the petitioners as necessary party which was dismissed as against Ghulam Muhammad. The present petitioners being in possession of the shops filed Misc. Petition under Order I, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. to be included as necessary party in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge of the High Court while accepting the writ petition transferred the two shops to respondents Nos. 1 to 6 alongwith Chobara and Deori and rejected the application of the petitioners under Order I, Rule 10 of C.P.C. vide his order dated 11‑2‑1986. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners being in physical possession of the shops at the relevant time and have already submitted their forms for the transfer of the shops were necessary parties but the learned High Court ignored to consider them an aggrieved party and erroneously dismissed their application under Order I, Rule 10 of C.P.C. and allotted the shops in dispute to the respondents without considering the entitlement of the petitioners. After hearing the learned counsel we think that his case is arguable and needs consideration of this Court. Leave to appeal is granted. Security Rs.5,000. Appeal shall be made ready on the present record with permission to parties to file necessary documents, if any. H.B.T./M‑1154/S Leave to appeal granted.