SCMR 2010

2010 PLP 1940 (SCMR)

TOWN COMMITTEE, ALIPUR — Petitioner Versus ALLAUDDIN and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
C.R.P. No.152 of 2008 in Civil Appeal No. 1758 of 2003, decided on 10th February, 2010.
Honorable Judges
Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ. Ch. Ijaz Ahmed and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2010 PLP 1940 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ. Ch. Ijaz Ahmed and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ
Parties TOWN COMMITTEE, ALIPUR — Petitioner Versus ALLAUDDIN and others — Respondents
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 1940 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 1940 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ. Ch. Ijaz Ahmed and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 1940 (SCMR) (TOWN COMMITTEE, ALIPUR — Petitioner Versus ALLAUDDIN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Representation

  • Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Saleem Amir, TMO, Town Committee, Alipur, Muhammad Kalim Akhtar, Accounts Officer, TMA, Alipur for Petitioners.
  • Mehmood Ashraf, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
  • Nemo for Respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6.

Headnotes / Summary

(Against the judgment dated 26-6-2008 passed by this Court in C.A. No. 1758 of 2003).

Art. 188

Review of Supreme Court judgment

High Court had non-suited respondent on the point of limitation, but that fact was not properly attended to in the impugned judgment

Prima facie, the petitioner/Town Committee as well could not be allowed to take over the disputed property without valid entitlement in respect thereto as per the law notwithstanding the fact whether there was a dispute between the private parties in respect of the validity or otherwise of the agreement in question

Review petition was allowed and impugned order was recalled and civil appeal arising out of the judgment of the High Court, was restored to its original number and it was ordered to be fixed after three weeks. Respondent No.1 in person.

Judgment & Decree

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CJ.

Having heard the learned counsel for parties as well as respondent Allauddin, we are of the opinion that the judgment under review needs to be reversed as benefit of section 13 of Limitation Act is only available to defendant not the plaintiff as per the language employed therein. Learned High Court had non-suited respondent Allauddin on the point of limitation but this fact was not properly attended to in the impugned judgment. Prima facie, Town Committee Alipur as well cannot be allowed to take over the disputed property without valid entitlement in respect thereto as per the law; notwithstanding the fact whether there was a dispute between the private parties in respect of the validity or otherwise of the agreement dated 15th October, 1967 (Exh.P-I). Therefore, review petition is allowed as a result, order dated 26-6-2008 is recalled and civil appeal arising out of the judgment of the High Court is restored to its original number. It is ordered to be fixed after three weeks.

2. In the meanwhile, learned counsel appearing for Town Committee is required to satisfy as to on what basis Town Committee Alipur took over the possession of the property and whether the said possession could be retained lawfully and whether the claimants of the ownership thereof could, conveniently be non-suited for technical reasons on question of limitation because during hearing of the case, it transpired that private parties were litigating with each other and in the meantime without legally acquiring the rights in that property, same was occupied by the Town Committee Alipur. When we asked learned counsel appearing for Town Committee as to what was the locus standi of the Committee to remain in the possession of this property, he candidly conceded that except a mutation entry existing in its name there was nothing to show that it was acquired in accordance with law or the Committee had any title document in its favour. Thus while hearing the appeal, this question would also be one of the moot points to engage attention of this Court. Confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the Committee stated that before the next date of hearing, he would seek instructions from the concerned quarters in this behalf as well. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary and the Secretary Local Government, Government of the Punjab as well as Administrator of appellant Committee because according to learned counsel on account of completion of term, the office of Nazim of the Town Committee was lying vacant. Learned counsel appearing for the Town Committee is also required to satisfy us as to why in presence of the stay order granted by different Courts including the High Court, the construction was raised on the disputed property. H.B.T./T-5/SC Petition allowed.