2003 PLP 1481 (CLC)
Haji GHOURI — Applicant Versus YAR MUHAMMAD CHANDIO and 16 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1481 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Khilji Arif Hussain, J |
| Parties | Haji GHOURI — Applicant Versus YAR MUHAMMAD CHANDIO and 16 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1481 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1481 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Khilji Arif Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1481 (CLC) (Haji GHOURI — Applicant Versus YAR MUHAMMAD CHANDIO and 16 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahid Sohrab Khan for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 12(2)
Application against-- Applicants claimed interest in respect of suit-land in their possession on basis of Sanad issued by Competent Authority in favour of the applicants
Suit filed by respondent in respect of land in question was decreed in absence of applicants
Decree in respect of suit-land apparently having been obtained by respondent by misrepresentation, same was liable to be set aside
Application filed by applicants under S.12(2), C.P.C. was granted and judgment and decree passed was set aside
Respondent was directed to file amended plant joining applicants as defendants who would file written statement within specified period. Muhammad Ikram Siddiqui for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
Zahid Sohrab Khan for Respondents. Heard the learned counsel. The learned counsel for the applicants stated that applicants are in possession of Na-Class 21, Makrani Para, Manghopir, Karachi only and are not in possession of Survey No.22 in respect of which the decree has been passed in favour of the plaintiff/DH in Suit No.1005 of 1996. The applicant stated that the decree has been obtained by fraud and in collusion with defendant to deprive the applicants from the properties for which they are holding valid Sanads and their names were mutated in the Deh Form II on 2-11-1991. On 6-12-2002 with the consent of the parties, Mukhtiarkar was appointed as Commissioner to carry out demarcation of Na-Class Nos.21 and 22, Deh Manghopir, Karachi. The Mukhtiarkar, Suddo at Karachi submitted his report on 11th April, 2002 and from the perusal of it, it appears that an area of 1.28 acres overlapped from Na-Class 21 to Na-Class
22. The, applicant's case is that they are in possession of Na-Class 21 and have no interest of any nature in Na-Class
22. The learned counsel for DH stated that let the applicants be joined as defendants in the Suit No. 1005 of 1996 and after examining the parties and officers of the department the Court may decide in the said suit whether the applicant was encroached upon Na-Class 22 claimed by the plaintiff and whether overlapped area is in fact part of the Na-Class 21 or is of Na-Class
22. The applicants claimed interest in respect of land in their possession on the basis of Sanad issued by competent authority and their presence was necessary for the adjudication of the issue in Suit No.1005 of 1996. The decree apparently has been obtained by misrepresentation and as such is liable to be set aside. The application is granted and the judgment and decree dated 10-5-1998 are set aside. The plaintiff is directed to file amended plaint. Joining the applicants as defendants with copy of it to applicants who will file written statement within two weeks time from the date of receiving the copy of plaint and matter be fixed for issues thereafter immediately. H.B.T./H-110/K Application allowed.