2000SCMR828 (PLP)
GHULAM RASOOL — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Respondent
| Citation | 2000SCMR828 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary and Rana Bhagwan Das, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM RASOOL — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000SCMR828 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000SCMR828 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary and Rana Bhagwan Das, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000SCMR828 (PLP) (GHULAM RASOOL — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abdul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 22nd February, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 6-12-1999 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.S.A. No. 15 of 1995).
S.12
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.33
Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.14
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Suit for declaration and possession was dismissed
Parties during pendency of appeal before Additional District and Sessions Judge made statement to the effect that matter be referred to District Judge for decision as a Referee
District Judge gave his decision and also appeared in the Court and got recorded his statement on oath
Parties accepted the same and appeal was disposed of in terms of decision of Referee
Defendant being not satisfied with decision of District Judge filed appeal before High Court which was dismissed
Leave to appeal was granted to examine the contention, as to whether statement made by the Referee would be considered as an information made under Art.33, Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 or in view of his statement which he got recorded in the Court same would be treated as an arbitration award in view of Supreme Court decision in Ghulam Farid Khan v. Muhammad Hanif Khan 1990 -SCMR
763. Ghulam Farid Khan v. Muhammad Hanif Khan 1990 SCMR 763 ref.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHARY, J.
This petition has been filed for leave to appeal against judgment, dated-6th December, 1999 in R. S. A. No. 15 of ,1995 passed by. Lahore High Court, whereby appeal instituted by petitioner has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stating facts of the case are that Muhammad Sharif son of Sardar filed a suit against petitioner (defendant) Ghulam Rasool for declaration and possession. The trial Court after conducting proceedings dismissed the suit on 27-2-1991. The respondent filed appeal in the Court of District Judge from where it was transferred to the file of Additional District Judge. During pendency of appeal parties made statement to the effect that matter be referred to Ch. Iftikhar Ahmad Cheema, District Judge Sargodha for decision as a Referee. Their request was accepted and the matter was referred to Mr. Iftikhar Ahmed Cheema who gave his decision and also appeared in the Court and got recorded his statement on oath. The parties accepted the same and the appeal was disposed of in terms of decision of the Referee vide judgment, dated 14th March, 1995. Petitioner Ghulam Rasool -feeling aggrieved from the order of appellate Court filed an appeal before the High Court which was dismissed vide impugned order.
3. Ch. Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner contended that the decision given by Ch. Iftikhar Ahmed Cheema will not be treated as an information under Article 33 of the Qanoon-e- Shahadat Order, 1984 but an arbitration award under section 14 of the Arbitration Act in view of judgment of this Court in the case of Ghulam Farid Khan v. Muhammad Hanif Khan and others (1990 $CMR 763). Contention raised by learned counsel requires consideration as to whether statement made by Ch. Iftikhar Ahmed Cheema will be considered as an information under Article 33 of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order or in view of his statement which he got recorded in the Court it will be treated as an arbitration award as it has been held by this Court in above judgment. Accordingly leave is granted. C.M.A.96-L/2000: Notice to the respondents within a fortnight. M.B.A./G-5/S Leave granted.