2006 PLP 934 (SCMR)
HANIFAN BEGUM and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AMEER — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 934 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | HANIFAN BEGUM and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AMEER — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 934 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 934 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 934 (SCMR) (HANIFAN BEGUM and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AMEER — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ali Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Sheikh Abdul Sattar Zahid, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 31st March, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 2-10-2000 of the Lahore High Court passed in C.R. No.1135 of 1995).
Ss. 8, 9 & 54
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2
Regular suit for possession after dismissal of summary suit filed under S.9 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 on ground of limitation
Defendant took over forcible possession of suit-land in violation of order of temporary injunction passed in a suit filed by plaintiff for permanent injunction
Defendant was convicted for such violation
Plaintiff's suit under S.9, Specific Relief Act, 1877 was dismissed on ground of limitation, over which he filed regular suit for recovery of possession with full court-fee, which was concurrently decreed by Courts below
Contention of defendant was that such regular suit should not have been decreed without establishing by plaintiff his title to suit-land
Plaintiff had become entitled to restoration of possession of suit-land after defendant had been found to have taken over forcible possession in violation of order of Civil Court and was punished for such act
Courts below in fresh suit had done that, which original Court, which passed order of conviction against defendant, - should have done
Justice having been done in such case, Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.
Leave is sought against the judgment, dated 2-10-2000 of the Lahore High Court through which revision petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.
2. The respondent in the first instance filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners alleging that the petitioners were intending to dispossess him from the land in dispute measuring 7 Marlas in which temporary .injunction was issued restrain them from interfering in the possession of the respondent over this land. The petitioners in violation of the said temporary injunction forcibly dispossessed the respondent from the land in dispute upon which the latter made an application for punishment of the petitioners for violation of the said order of the Court. The petitioners were found guilty of violation of the order of the Court, therefore, they were convicted and sentenced to undergo one month imprisonment by the trial Court which passed the order of temporary injunction. In appeal, however, the said conviction was upheld but instead of imprisonment of one month, they were punished with fine of Rs.10,
000. They did not challenge the said order any further, therefore, the same became final.
3. The respondent thereafter filed summary suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act for recovery of possession of the land in dispute. It was dismissed on the ground of limitation, for the same had not been filed within six months period of limitation prescribed under the law of such suits.
4. The respondent filed the present regular suit for recovery of possession of the land on the ground of his dispossession with full court-fee. It was decreed by the trial Court through judgment, dated 22-2-1992 against which appeal filed by the petitioners ' was dismissed by the First Appellate Court through judgment, dated 8-2-1995. Revision petition filed by them has also been dismissed by the High Court through the impugned judgment, dated 2-10-2000 against which leave is sought.
5. After once the petitioners having been held to have taken over forcible possession in violation of the order of the civil Court and punished for that, the respondent was entitled to the restoration of possession of the land in his favour. The Courts below in the fresh suit had done the same which the original Court which passed the order of conviction against the petitioners for violation of temporary injunction order should have done. Since justice has been done in this case, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment in exercise of discretion vested in this Court under Article 185 of the Constitution in the matter of grant of leave and leave the ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after the suit filed under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act had been dismissed, the respondent should not have been granted decree for the recovery of possession unless title in the property in the form of ownership had been established for decision in some other case.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./H-88/SC????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.