1989 PLP 1783(2) (SCMR)
Sh. MUHAMMAD SHARIF and another Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1783(2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ |
| Parties | Sh. MUHAMMAD SHARIF and another Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1783(2) (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 1989 PLP 1783(2) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid lqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1783(2) (SCMR) (Sh. MUHAMMAD SHARIF and another Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Sabir, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Adam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 11th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 11‑11‑1980 in Civil Revision No.334 of 1979). ‑‑‑OXXI, R.58‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Execution of decree‑‑Objection‑‑Petitioner's execution petition was resisted on the ground that some part of land purchased in auction belonged to Government‑‑Disputed part of land was cancelled‑‑Petitioners had purchased a plot in auction measuring 1,400 sq. yds. of which area more than 1,100 sq. yds. was still with them and about 250 sq. yds. belonged to Government‑‑Price of disputed portion was to be refunded to petitioners‑‑High Court adequately dealt with all the points which had been raised‑‑Leave to appeal against order of High Court was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners against the dismissal of their Civil Revision by the High Court in a matter arising out of execution of a decree. As stated by the learned counsel, the petitioners obtained a plot of urban land for building purposes at a public auction. The land belonged to the Government. Some doubt arose about the area of the plot sold in auction to the petitioners. They accordingly filed a suit for possession of the disputed portion. It was decreed. They filed an application for execution which was resisted mainly on the ground that the disputed part fell within the area of the bungalow of Superintending Engineer, Irrigation. It belonged to the Government and was occupied by the said officer. The disputed area accordingly, it was pleaded in objection to the execution, stood cancelled from the auctioned land. The objection having been upheld the petitioners' Civil Revision was dismissed. They have now sought leave to appeal. A learned Single Judge in the High Court adequately dealt with all the points which ‑have been raised before us. However, we have examined the case from another aspect. The petitioners, according to the learned counsel, purchased in auction a plot measuring 1,4(10 sq. yards. The portion in dispute which undoubtedly falls within the bungalow belonging to Irrigation Department of the Government, according to the learned counsel's calculations done during the arguments, is hardly about 250 yards. If the mistake is taken to be taken seriously, the petitioners will have to be given possession of the part of a house of the Superintending Engineer. In the circumstances of this case when the petitioners have more than 1100 sq. yds. still with them and the price of the disputed portion has been or is being refunded to them, we do not consider it a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal. This petition accordingly is dismissed. M.A.K./M‑858/S Leave refused.