2010L296 (PLP)
Rana SAEED AHMED and 5 others — Petitioners Versus NASIR AHMAD and 8 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010L296 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Rana SAEED AHMED and 5 others — Petitioners Versus NASIR AHMAD and 8 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010L296 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010L296 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010L296 (PLP) (Rana SAEED AHMED and 5 others — Petitioners Versus NASIR AHMAD and 8 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Tahir Chaudhry for Petitioners.
- Ch. Hamid Mahmood for Respondents Nos.1 to 3.
- Sh. Maqbool Hussain for Respondents Nos.4 to 6.
- Raja Nadeem Haider, Addl. A.-G. for Respondents Nos.7 to 9 with Maqbool Ahmad, Inspector with record.
- 2. The petitioners have agitated before this Court that as a matter of fact they were and are owners in possession of the relevant parcel of land but respondents Nos.1 to 3 and respondents Nos.4 to 6 had colluded with each other for depriving the petitioners of their possession through filing a collusive complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The said stand of the petitioners has vehemently been contested by the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 as well as the learned counsel for respondents Nos.4 to 6. However, during the hearing of this petition a consensus has emerged between the learned counsel for the parties that it shall serve the interests of justice if the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pattoki, District Kasur on 2-7-2009 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Additional Sessions Judge for reconsideration and re-decision of the matter after affording an opportunity to the petitioners to advance their case before him. In the peculiar circumstances of this case I have found the above-mentioned consensus to be fostering the ends of justice and, thus, liable to be accepted. This writ petition is, therefore, allowed with no order as to costs, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pattoki, District Kasur on 2-7-2009 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pattoki, District Kasur for reconsidering and re-deciding the matter after affording an opportunity to the petitioners to advance their case before him. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pattoki, District Kasur shall complete the exercise within the next four weeks.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 3
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Petitioners challenged the decision of Trial Court passed in the complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 to the effect that petitioners were owners in possession of the disputed property but respondents had colluded with each other for depriving the petitioners of their possession through filing a collusive complaint under the Act
Consensus had emerged between the counsel for the parties during hearing of the constitutional petition, that it shall serve the interests of justice if the impugned order passed by Trial Court was set aside and the matter be remanded to the Trial Court for reconsideration and re-decision of the matter after affording an opportunity to the petitioners to advance their case
Held, in peculiar circumstances of the case consensus between the parties was in the interest of fostering the ends of justice
High Court allowed the constitutional petition and set aside the order passed by Trial Court with direction to decide the matter accordingly within the next four weeks.
Judgment & Decree
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.
Through this writ petition the petitioners have called in question the order dated 2-7-2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pattoki, District Kasur whereby a complaint filed by respondent No.1 against respondent No.4 under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 had been disposed of in a particular manner.
2. The petitioners have agitated before this Court that as a matter of fact they were and are owners in possession of the relevant parcel of land but respondents Nos.1 to 3 and respondents Nos.4 to 6 had colluded with each other for depriving the petitioners of their possession through filing a collusive complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The said stand of the petitioners has vehemently been contested by the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 as well as the learned counsel for respondents Nos.4 to
6. However, during the hearing of this petition a consensus has emerged between the learned counsel for the parties that it shall serve the interests of justice if the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pattoki, District Kasur on 2-7-2009 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Additional Sessions Judge for reconsideration and re-decision of the matter after affording an opportunity to the petitioners to advance their case before him. In the peculiar circumstances of this case I have found the above-mentioned consensus to be fostering the ends of justice and, thus, liable to be accepted. This writ petition is, therefore, allowed with no order as to costs, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pattoki, District Kasur on 2-7-2009 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pattoki, District Kasur for reconsidering and re-deciding the matter after affording an opportunity to the petitioners to advance their case before him. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pattoki, District Kasur shall complete the exercise within the next four weeks. M.U.Y./S-16/L Case remanded.