1987 PLP 1143 (SCMR)
LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL QADIR and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1143 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL QADIR and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1143 (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 1987 PLP 1143 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1143 (SCMR) (LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL QADIR and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th April, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court passed on 10‑2‑1982 in Civil Revision No. 911/D of 1981). ‑‑S. 115‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Revisional jurisdiction‑‑ Concurrent findings of three Courts‑‑Interference with dispute relating to shack in a busy commercial market‑‑Both appellate Court and High Court affirming view taken by Trial Court that shack was allotted by petitioner to respondent, possession delivered and all dues demanded from him by petitioner were paid‑‑Supreme Court declined to take a different view‑‑Petitioner's plea that respondent had yet to pay full price of shack as one indicated earlier was merely proposed price, also found not tenable because petitioner had failed to indicate final price despite lapse of about three decades‑‑Judgments of Courts below not being open to interference on this ground, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th April, 1987. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court whereby it declined to interfere in revisional jurisdiction with the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Lahore affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
2. The dispute between the parties relates to a shack situate in the Alamgir Market, Lahore. There are concurrent findings of Additional District Judge and the trial Court that the shack was allotted to Ghulam Bari, predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents, that the possession of the shack was delivered to the allottee and that he paid all the dues demanded from him by the petitioner.
3. The main plea of the petitioner at the trial was that the allotment made in favour of Ghulam Bari had been cancelled for subletting the shack. This plea was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that before cancellation no notice was issued to the respondents who had succeeded to his interest on his death and as such the order of cancellation was bad in law. Both the Additional District Judge and the High Court have affirmed the view taken by the trial Court and we see no reason to differ with them.
4. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents had yet to pay the full price of the shack as the one earlier indicated by them was merely the proposed price. It is to be noticed that the shack was allotted to Ghulam Bari on 15‑10‑1958. Since then almost three decades have passed. The petitioner has not so far indicated the final price. We are not, therefore, prepared to interfere with the judgments of the Courts below on this ground.
5. For the reasons stated above we find no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed. M.I//L‑2/S Petition dismissed