1991 PLP 1901 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ZAMAN — Petitioner Versus INAYAT ALI and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1901 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Naimuddin and Ajmal Mian, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ZAMAN — Petitioner Versus INAYAT ALI and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1901 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1901 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Naimuddin and Ajmal Mian, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1901 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ZAMAN — Petitioner Versus INAYAT ALI and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maulvi Siraj-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and MA. Siddiqui Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (absent).
- Ch: Ghulam Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate -on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th December, 1989.
- Maulvi Siraj‑ul‑Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and MA. Siddiqui Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (absent).
- Ch: Ghulam Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate ‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 20-i1-88 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in Civil Revision No.70/D of 1986)
S. 22
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Contention that Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain suit instituted by plaintiffs/respondents to grant decree in respect of evacuee suit land jointly allotted to parties
No objection regarding lack of jurisdiction of Court was taken by petitioner before Trial Court and no issue was struck with regard thereto, but suit was contested in Courts below only on merits
Fair and just decision having been made by Courts below, leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑‑The respondents herein filed a suit averring that the defendant (petitioner in this petition for leave to appeal) was their co‑allottee but was denying their share in the suit land. Accordingly, an issue was framed to the effect "whether the plaintiff and the defendants are members of one family (kunba) and the suit land was allotted to them jointly". The learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said decree was dismissed by the Additional District Judge and the High Court has refused to interfere, on revision. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. The main ground urged in support of this petition is that the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain a suit to grant a decree in respect of the suit land on the ground of joint allotment to the parties of‑an evacuee land, in view of the provisions of section 22 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. This argument was rejected by the High Court on the ground that the point of jurisdiction was not taken in the written statement and the suit was contested in the Courts below only on the merits. We do not think that this is a fit case for interference. No objection was taken on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court before the trial Court and no issue struck with regard thereto; the Parchi Taqseem (allotment chit) on which the petitioner was relying clearly showed that he was a member of the Kunba. A fair & just decision appears to have been made by the Courts below. Leave refused. H.B.T./M‑1216/S Leave refused.