2006 PLP 917 (CLC)
Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR and 16 others — Appellants Versus Mst. KANIZ FATIMA and 73 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 917 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR and 16 others — Appellants Versus Mst. KANIZ FATIMA and 73 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 917 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 917 (CLC)?
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: 2006 PLP 917 (CLC) (Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR and 16 others — Appellants Versus Mst. KANIZ FATIMA and 73 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 8
Ex parte proceedings against defendant
Plaintiff produced in evidence copies of Jamabandies, Khasra Girdawari and report of Local Commission appointed by Court
One plaintiff's witness categorically stated that defendant had encroached upon the suit land
Trial Court dismissed suit on the ground that plaintiff had not produced cogent evidence to show encroachment upon suit-land by defendant
Impugned judgment was sketchy, wherein such evidence had not been considered or discussed
High Court accepted appeal, set aside impugned judgment/decree and remanded case to Trial Court for its decision afresh after taking into consideration entire evidence on record.
Judgment & Decree
This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 12-12-2000, whereby, the suit filed by the appellants was dismissed.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the predecessor-in-interest of appellants Nos.1 to 10 filed a suit for possession of the property in dispute and' recovery of Rs.50,000 as compensation for use and occupation against respondents Nos.1 to 67 and respondents Nos.77 to
86. Appellants Nos.11 to 17 who are also co-owners of the suit property were impleaded as defendants in the suit. The appellants Nos.11 to 17 conceded the case of the other appellants while the present respondents resisted the suit. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed, evidence was led by the plaintiffs; however, the contesting defendants did not produce any evidence and eventually were proceeded ex parte. The trial Court vide the impugned judgment and decree dismissed the suit.
3. That vide order, dated 11-11-2003, the respondents were directed to be served through citation in the press. The needful has been done but 'no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents, hence, the same are proceeded ex parte.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has been heard and the record of the trial Court has also been perused.
5. The suit has been dismissed on the ground, that the plaintiffs have not produced any cogent evidence to show that the defendants Nos.1 to 56 had made encroachment upon the Khasra numbers, which belonged to the plaintiffs. So, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief as prayed for. The appellants in respect of the case', have produced copies of the Jamabandies and copies of Khasra Girdawari. Furthermore, a Local Commission was also appointed who submitted his report, which is also on the record. One of the plaintiffs namely Mohsin Karim appeared as witness and categorically stated that the contesting defendants were encroachers upon the land bearing Khasras Nos.223-226-256-763/257, which is the suit property as described in the plaint.
6. A perusal of the impugned judgment, which is rather sketchy, makes it clear and obvious that the aforesaid evidence produced by appellants has not been discussed or considered. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained and the matter must necessarily be decided afresh after taking into account all the evidence on the record. Thus, the impugned judgment and decree is set aside and the case is remanded back to the trial Court, who shall decide the matter afresh after taking into consideration the entire evidence on the record. S.A.K./S-409/L Case remanded