1979 PLP 530 (CLC)
TAJ DIN-Petitioner Versus NUR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1979 PLP 530 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | TAJ DIN-Petitioner Versus NUR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1979 PLP 530 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1979 PLP 530 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1979 PLP 530 (CLC) (TAJ DIN-Petitioner Versus NUR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ghulam Muhammad Bhatti for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 115, 144 & 151-Restitution-Section 144 applies only when decree of Court varied or reversed-.Order of appellate Court directing possession to be delivered by a particular date neither varied nor reversed- Order of restitution, in circumstances, held, to be treated as having been passed under S. 151, Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Order passed under S. 151 being revisable District Judge, held, passed order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.--[Revision (civil)].
Judgment & Decree
This petition has been. filet[ to challenge a revisional order passed by Mr. Mohammad Afzal Sohail Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura.
2. This petition is barred by section 115; C. P. C. since a second revision petition does not lie before the High Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the learned Additional District Judge was exercising appellate jurisdiction since the. order of the Executing Court dated 27-7-1978 was an appealable order.
3. The facts are that according to the petitioner the respondents could take possession of the property after the 31st of July 1973 but they obtained possession on 31st of July 1973. The petitioner, therefore, applied for restoration under section 144/151, C. P. C. It may be stated that the order of ejectment has not so far been varied or reversed although a second appeal from the order is still pending in the High 'Court. The learned Civil Judge held that even if section 144, C. P. C. was not applicable, he could. pass an order of restoration under section 151, C. P. C. The respondents filed a revision petition against this order which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge who set aside the order of the Executing Court. In these circumstances it was urged that the order of the Executing Court should have been treated to have been passed under section 144, C. P. C. 3-A. This argument is without substance since section 144 can apply only if a decree of the Court is varied or reversed. As stated above it is clear that the order of the appellate Court by which the possession was directed to be delivered by a particular date has not been varied or reversed. 1, therefore, agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that the A order of restitution should be treated to have been passed, as it was actually passed, under section 151, C. P. C. and an order passed under that section is revisable. The Additional District Judge was thus clearly. exercising the revisional jurisdiction.
4. Even otherwise if the learned Additional District Judge says that he is exercising revisional jurisdiction though the order before him may be appealable, the High Court cannot set aside the said order under section 115. a It is a different matter that it may be set aside in exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution.
5. The petition is, therefore, not competent and is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.