1994SCMR1771 (PLP)
Mst. LALAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD and 12 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994SCMR1771 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. LALAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD and 12 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994SCMR1771 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994SCMR1771 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994SCMR1771 (PLP) (Mst. LALAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD and 12 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd November, 1993.
- 2. The facts in brief are that Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 brought a suit for permanent injunction with a prayer that the petitioner was causing hindrance to the right of passage, which they were using for the last over 50 years. It was also prayed that the petitioner may be directed to remove the wall constructed by her. The suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge. The petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal against the judgment of the learned trial Court. During the pendency of the appeal the parties agreed to the appointment of Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate, Chakwal, as a referee in the matter, for deciding the question as to whether the passage in dispute remained under constant use of the respondents for long and there is no alternative passage for them. Ch: Muhammad Akram submitted his report before the learned lower Appellate Court on 7‑5‑1987. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal on the basis of the report. The petitioner challenged these orders in Civil Revision before the High Court, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
- 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the evidence had been recorded by Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate, as such he was an Arbitrator, therefore, an opportunity should have been given to the petitioner to file objection to the award. This contention has no force. Ch. Muhammad Akram was appointed to resolve the dispute, by the parties themselves. He had taken the evidence to settle the real dispute between the parties. Such evidence was necessary because the contention of the petitioner was that there was an alternate passage for the use of the respondents, and that they had not been using such passage. After taking evidence, Ch. Muhammad Akram resolved the controversy which formed the basis of the judgment of the Additional District Judge. Even if Ch. Muhammad Akram be treated as Arbitrator, there was no allegation of misconduct against him, therefore, his report was properly accepted by the Courts below. The learned High Court has adverted to the facts of the case and observed as under:‑‑
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 27‑6‑1993 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, passed in C.R.No. 148/D of 1988). Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 33‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Appointment of referee by the parties themselves for resolving dispute between them‑‑ Appellate Court resolving controversy between the parties on the basis of referee's report‑‑‑Referee had taken evidence for settling dispute between parties which was necessary in resolving the dispute in question‑‑‑Concurrent findings of all the Courts below were on merit‑‑‑No misreading of evidence was pointed out‑‑‑No point of law of public importance required determination by the Supreme Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 27‑6‑1993.
2. The facts in brief are that Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 brought a suit for permanent injunction with a prayer that the petitioner was causing hindrance to the right of passage, which they were using for the last over 50 years. It was also prayed that the petitioner may be directed to remove the wall constructed by her. The suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge. The petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal against the judgment of the learned trial Court. During the pendency of the appeal the parties agreed to the appointment of Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate, Chakwal, as a referee in the matter, for deciding the question as to whether the passage in dispute remained under constant use of the respondents for long and there is no alternative passage for them. Ch: Muhammad Akram submitted his report before the learned lower Appellate Court on 7‑5‑1987. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal on the basis of the report. The petitioner challenged these orders in Civil Revision before the High Court, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the evidence had been recorded by Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate, as such he was an Arbitrator, therefore, an opportunity should have been given to the petitioner to file objection to the award. This contention has no force. Ch. Muhammad Akram was appointed to resolve the dispute, by the parties themselves. He had taken the evidence to settle the real dispute between the parties. Such evidence was necessary because the contention of the petitioner was that there was an alternate passage for the use of the respondents, and that they had not been using such passage. After taking evidence, Ch. Muhammad Akram resolved the controversy which formed the basis of the judgment of the Additional District Judge. Even if Ch. Muhammad Akram be treated as Arbitrator, there was no allegation of misconduct against him, therefore, his report was properly accepted by the Courts below. The learned High Court has adverted to the facts of the case and observed as under:‑‑ "Report of the referee Exh. C.1 on the basis whereof the judgment has been rendered by the learned first appellate Court clearly reflects the right of passage of the respondents on the basis of easement of necessity inasmuch as they do not possess an alternate passage, consequently, it cannot be said that the report has neither been misread or the learned lower appellate Court has rendered a wrong judgment." Not only the learned trial Court but also the learned High Court disposed of the case on merits. There are concurrent findings by all the Courts below. There is no misreading of evidence. No point of law of public importance requires determination by this Court. There is no substance in this petition. The same is dismissed and the leave prayed for refused. AA./L‑68/S Leave refused.