1984 PLP 689 (SCMR)
BASHIR AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAMEED AND ANOTHER‑ — Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 689 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ---Art. 185(3)‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 144‑Adverse pos session ‑ Record showing that it was third time that petitioner was seeking from Supreme Court a finding that he had become an owner of property by adverse possession‑Petitioner in first round was found to be a tenant, in second round to be a tenant having repudiated his position as tenant and also failing to pay rent and rightly ordered to be ejected‑Petitioner in present petition seeking to agitate same question but in an absolutely unwarranted manner by challenging judgments of High Court and Supreme Court in suit filed before a civil Court‑Civil Court rejected plaint under O. VII, r. 11, C. P. C.‑Petitioner contend ing before Supreme Court that he wanted to press suit on ground that he had become owner of property by virtue of his so‑called adverse possession against predecessors‑in‑interest of landlord‑‑Such issue finally closed by decision of Supreme Court on first round Question of relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner and landlord also finally decided by Supreme Court in second round Held, case was a classic case of misuse of procedures made available by law of land for genuinely aggrieved persons to seek remedies‑Reopening of matters in this way were barred by law‑While disapproving such approach to law and dismissing petition, Supreme Court issued notice for contempt of Supreme Court to lawyers who drafted petitioner's pleadings up to Supreme Court in last round of litigation.‑Contempt of Court . |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAMEED AND ANOTHER‑ — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 689 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 689 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ---Art. 185(3)‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 144‑Adverse pos session ‑ Record showing that it was third time that petitioner was seeking from Supreme Court a finding that he had become an owner of property by adverse possession‑Petitioner in first round was found to be a tenant, in second round to be a tenant having repudiated his position as tenant and also failing to pay rent and rightly ordered to be ejected‑Petitioner in present petition seeking to agitate same question but in an absolutely unwarranted manner by challenging judgments of High Court and Supreme Court in suit filed before a civil Court‑Civil Court rejected plaint under O. VII, r. 11, C. P. C.‑Petitioner contend ing before Supreme Court that he wanted to press suit on ground that he had become owner of property by virtue of his so‑called adverse possession against predecessors‑in‑interest of landlord‑‑Such issue finally closed by decision of Supreme Court on first round Question of relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner and landlord also finally decided by Supreme Court in second round Held, case was a classic case of misuse of procedures made available by law of land for genuinely aggrieved persons to seek remedies‑Reopening of matters in this way were barred by law‑While disapproving such approach to law and dismissing petition, Supreme Court issued notice for contempt of Supreme Court to lawyers who drafted petitioner's pleadings up to Supreme Court in last round of litigation.‑Contempt of Court . bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 689 (SCMR) (BASHIR AHMAD‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL HAMEED AND ANOTHER‑ — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kokab Iqbal, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 8tb May, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the Order of Lahore High Court, dated 12th February, 1984 in C. R. No. 232‑D of 1984).
Art. 185(3)‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 144‑Adverse pos session ‑ Record showing that it was third time that petitioner was seeking from Supreme Court a finding that he had become an owner of property by adverse possession‑Petitioner in first round was found to be a tenant, in second round to be a tenant having repudiated his position as tenant and also failing to pay rent and rightly ordered to be ejected‑Petitioner in present petition seeking to agitate same question but in an absolutely unwarranted manner by challenging judgments of High Court and Supreme Court in suit filed before a civil Court‑Civil Court rejected plaint under O. VII, r. 11, C. P. C.‑Petitioner contend ing before Supreme Court that he wanted to press suit on ground that he had become owner of property by virtue of his so‑called adverse possession against predecessors‑in‑interest of landlord‑‑Such issue finally closed by decision of Supreme Court on first round Question of relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner and landlord also finally decided by Supreme Court in second round Held, case was a classic case of misuse of procedures made available by law of land for genuinely aggrieved persons to seek remedies‑Reopening of matters in this way were barred by law‑While disapproving such approach to law and dismissing petition, Supreme Court issued notice for contempt of Supreme Court to lawyers who drafted petitioner's pleadings up to Supreme Court in last round of litigation.‑[Contempt of Court] .
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑This petition is directed against Order dated 12‑2‑1984 of the Lahore High Court ; whereby a Civil Revision arising out of a suit filed by the petitioner (tenant) to set at naught a final judgment of the Supreme Court confirming the orders of his eviction, was dismissed in limine. The brief facts relevant for disposal of this petition as noted in the High Court Order are that "the petitioner, who is a tenant of a shop had been ordered to be ejected there from by the Rent Controller, as per his order dated 6th July, 1980. The petitioner challenged that order further but failed when his appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 19th June, 1982. He then filed a suit for a declaration that the orders passed by the Rent Controller and those up to the Supreme Court are illegal, void and inopera tive against his rights because the respondents were not the owners of the shop in dispute. He alleged fraud etc. in the plaint. The trial Court, however, rejected his plaint under Order VII, rule 1 l; C. P. C. and the District Judge upheld the same in appeal". As the record shows this is the third time that the petitioner has sought from this Court a finding that he had become an owner of the property by adverse possession. In the first round it was found that he was a tenant. In the second round it was found that he being a tenant, having repudiated his position as tenant and also having failed to pay the rent, was rightly ordered to be ejected. This time the petitioner sought to agitate the same question but in an absolutely unwarranted manner by challenging the judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court in the suit filed before a civil Court. The plaint was rejected under Order VII, rule
11. We questioned the petitioner himself regarding the grounds on which he wanted to press the suit. His answer is that he had become the owner of the property by virtue of his so‑called adverse possession against the predecessors in‑interest of respondent No.
1. This issue was finally closed by the decision of the Supreme Court in the first round in C. P. No. 481 of 1979. The question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 was finally decided against him by Supreme Court in an other round on 19‑6‑1983. The petitioner then filed an objection against execution and lost upto the High Court. Thereafter he again has tried to re‑open the same question in a civil suit out of which this petition has arisen. It is a classic case of misuse of the procedures made available by the law of the land for genuinely aggrieved persons to seek remedies. There are several recent judgments of this Court whereby such approach to law and Courts has been disapproved. The re‑opening of the matter in this case has rightly been held to be barred by law. We accordingly while dismissing this petition issue notice to petitioner for contempt of this Court. Notice shall issue to the lawyers who drafted the petitioner's pleadings upto the Supreme Court in this last round of litigation to show cause as to why they should not be debarred from legal practice. M.Z. M. Petition dismissed.