1970 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD TUFAIL AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus SALIM AND 2 OTHERS‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1970 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Cheema, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD TUFAIL AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus SALIM AND 2 OTHERS‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Cheema, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD TUFAIL AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus SALIM AND 2 OTHERS‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Saeed Hasan for Petitioners.
- Jari Ullah for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code ( V of 1898) S. 146 (I)‑Attachment‑Magistrate on examination of evidence produced by parties unable to satisfy himself as to which part v was in possession of' disputed property‑Order of attachment, held, unexceptionable crud to remain in force until a competent Court has determined rights of parties as to title and possession. Abdus Samad Hashmi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Saeed Hasan for Petitioners. Jari Ullah for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 Abdus Samad Hashmi for the State. A perusal of the record shows that the order challenged by petitioner was merely an excerpt from the order sheet and not tire impugned order itself which has now been perused by me. This order wits passed by the learned Magistrate after affording opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims-on the point of possession of the disputed room. After having recorded the evidence led by the parties, he was unable to satisfy himself as to, which of them was in possession of the disputed room and. consequently in exercise of the powers vesting in him under section 146(1) of the Cr. P. C. attached the same. The aforesaid provision reads as follows:‑‑ "Section 146.‑(1) if the Magistrate decides that none of the parties was then in such possession, or is unable to satisfy him self as to which of them was then in such possession of the subject of dispose,, he may attach it until a competent Court has determined the rights of the parties thereto, or the person entitled to possession thereof : Provided that tire District Magistrate or the Magistrate who has attached the subject of dispute may withdraw‑the attach ment at any time if he is satisfied that there is no longer any likelihood of a breach of the peace in regard to the subject of dispute. (2) . . . . . . . . . ."
2. The order of attachment is to remain in force until a competent Court has determined the rights of the parties as to their title to possession thereof. The order is unexceptionable. Consequently, I find no force in this petition which is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.