2007 PLP 1792 (YLR)
NASREEN KAUSER — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH and others-Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1792 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Sarmad Jalal Osmani and Nadeem Azhar Siddiqi, JJ |
| Parties | NASREEN KAUSER — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH and others-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1792 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1792 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Sarmad Jalal Osmani and Nadeem Azhar Siddiqi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1792 (YLR) (NASREEN KAUSER — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH and others-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Tasnim for Petitioner.
- Fazalur Rehman for Respondent No.3.
- Muhammad Zafar for Respondents Nos.4 and 5.
- Learned counsel for petitioner says that vide impugned letter dated 27-4-2006 issued by Town Nazim of North Nazimabad Town, Karachi who is the Respondent No.3, he has summoned the petitioner to his office along with all the documents of the property in question, failing which, suitable legal steps would be taken against her. According to learned counsel, this is a pure harassment case, since the property is the subject-matter of civil litigation before this Court, and hence, respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction at all to interfere in the same.
- In reply, learned counsel for respondent No.3 says that although the respondent No.3 had issued impugned letter, however, when he came to know that the matter is sub judice before a Court of law, no further action was taken in the matter. According to learned counsel, in fact the respondent No.3 was trying to resolve the dispute between the parties, who are petitioner and her stepsons in terms of section 103 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 2001, whereby he has the power to mediate between the claimants. Learned counsel has also referred counter affidavit of the respondent No.3.
- Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 says that he has filed statement to the effect that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 have not harassed the petitioner and that they have resorted to a Court of law in order to resolve the dispute.
Judgment & Decree
Learned counsel for petitioner says that vide impugned letter dated 27-4-2006 issued by Town Nazim of North Nazimabad Town, Karachi who is the Respondent No.3, he has summoned the petitioner to his office along with all the documents of the property in question, failing which, suitable legal steps would be taken against her. According to learned counsel, this is a pure harassment case, since the property is the subject-matter of civil litigation before this Court, and hence, respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction at all to interfere in the same. In reply, learned counsel for respondent No.3 says that although the respondent No.3 had issued impugned letter, however, when he came to know that the matter is sub judice before a Court of law, no further action was taken in the matter. According to learned counsel, in fact the respondent No.3 was trying to resolve the dispute between the parties, who are petitioner and her stepsons in terms of section 103 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 2001, whereby he has the power to mediate between the claimants. Learned counsel has also referred counter affidavit of the respondent No.3. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 says that he has filed statement to the effect that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 have not harassed the petitioner and that they have resorted to a Court of law in order to resolve the dispute. Learned A.A.-G. has supported the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the respondent No.3 has no jurisdiction at all to summon any party along with the documents etc. under plane of legal proceedings. At the most, he should have invited the parties to negotiate with regard to the amicable settlement amongst each other. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and A.A.-G. In ' the circumstances, of the case, in our opinion the letter under reference is certainly not an invitation to anyone for the purpose of mediation. It is rather strict in nature and directory which in our opinion does not come within the power of the respondent No.3 under section 103 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 2001, which provides for mediation etc. for the purpose of amicable settlement of disputes. Consequently, we would dispose of the petition by directing the respondent No.3 to use temperate language with citizens particularly when he is to become a mediator between two rival parties. A copy; of this order shall be sent to the respondent No.3 for his future guidance. The respondent No.3 shall not take any further steps insofar as the matter is concerned. M.B.A./N-23/K Order accordingly.