2010 PLP 333 (GBLR)
MUHAMMAD GHAFAR and others — Petitioners Versus ZAMINDARAN BIRGAL through representatives and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 333 (GBLR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Appellate Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, C.J. |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD GHAFAR and others — Petitioners Versus ZAMINDARAN BIRGAL through representatives and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 333 (GBLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 333 (GBLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Appellate Court bench comprising: Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, C.J..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 333 (GBLR) (MUHAMMAD GHAFAR and others — Petitioners Versus ZAMINDARAN BIRGAL through representatives and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Hussain Shehzad, Advocate for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
O. XXI, R.15 & S.115
Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art.60(13)
Execution of decree by joint decree-holders, application for
Petitioners had sought execution of the compromise decree passed in a representative suit involving the dispute in respect of shamlat land
Contention of the petitioners was that decree in such a suit would be deemed to have been passed in favour of all co-owners/co-sharers in the propriety body of the village; and since the suit land was shamlat land which was joint property of all the owners in the village, the decree was joint for the purpose of execution
Petitioners on the basis of their ownership in the village had claimed possession of land of their share of the shamlat land in question seeking execution of decree passed in a suit in which petitioners were not party
Counsel for the petitioners when was pointed out that a stranger in the suit without determination of his right in the suit property, would have no locus standi to claim such right in execution proceedings; and in any case, the decree in question could not fall within the definition of joint decree' in terms of O.XVI, R.15, C.P.C. for the purpose of execution, he without further pressing the petition, submitted that they would avail the appropriate remedy before the proper forum for the possession of land of their share
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed as not pressed.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, C.J.
This petition has been directed against the order dated 25-03-2010 passed by the Chief Court in a Civil Revision arising out of an application under Order XXI, Rule 15 read with section 115, C.P.C. by virtue of which the petitioner sought execution of the compromise decree passed in a representative suit involving the dispute in respect of shamlat land. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the decree in such a suit is deemed to have been passed in favour of all co-owners/co-sharers in the propriety body of village and since the subject matter of the suit was shamlat land which was joint property of all the owners in the village therefore the decree was joint for the purpose of execution and the Chief Court without appreciating the correct legal position illegally dismissed the revision petition with observation that decree was not executable as joint decree. The learned counsel during the course of arguments has submitted that notwithstanding the fact that compromise decree has already been executed the petitioners being the joint owners of the suit land would be entitled to the possession of land of their share, therefore, the application under Order, XXI, Rule 15, C.P.C. was maintainable. The petitioners on the basis of their ownership in the village have claimed possession of land of their share of the shamlat land subject matter of suit seeking execution of the executed decree passed in a suit in which they were not party. The learned counsel for the petitioners when pointed out that a stranger in the suit without determination of his right in the suit property would have no locus standi to claim such right in execution proceedings and in any case, the decree in question may not fall within the definition of joint decree in terms of Order XXI, Rule 15, C.P.C., for the purpose of execution, he without further pressing this petition before us has submitted that petitioners will avail the appropriate remedy before the proper forum for the possession of land of their share. In view thereof this petition is dismissed as not pressed. H.B.T./62/Glt. Petition dismissed.