1998 PLP 1200 (SCMR)
FAZAL KARIM ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus RAWAL MALIK and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 1200 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Fazal Karim, JJ |
| Parties | FAZAL KARIM ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus RAWAL MALIK and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 1200 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 1200 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Fazal Karim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 1200 (SCMR) (FAZAL KARIM ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus RAWAL MALIK and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Abdul Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. M.A. Farani, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th November, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 3‑11‑1994 passed in C.R. No.799 of 1994; ‑‑‑‑S. 144‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Restitution of possession by Trial Court‑‑‑Order of restitution of possession was maintained by First Appellate Court as also by the High Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Material on record indicated that restitution of possession had been allowed by Trial Court under 5.144, C.P.C. as a result of setting aside of decree by First Appellate Court‑‑ High Court's order showed that there was no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by High Court refusing to interfere with that order whereby possession had been ordered to be restored to respondents as a result of setting aside of decree passed in favour of petitioner‑‑‑No case for interference with judgment o High Court was made out‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances
Judgment & Decree
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.
The above petition arises out of the proceeding) under section 144, C.P.C. filed by respondents as a result of setting aside of the decree passed in a pre-emption suit against them. The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner instituted a suit to pre-empt the sale in favour of respondents before the Civil Judge which was decreed on 18-6-1984. However, on respondents appeal, the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside on 25-1-1987 and the case was remanded for retrial. During the period when the appeal was pending before the first appellate Court the petitioner got the decree executed and obtained the possession of the pre-empted land. After the decree was set aside by the first appellate Court and case was remanded, the respondents filed application under section 144, C.P.C. for restitution of the possession of the land which was subject maker of the suit. This application was granted on 28-9-1991 and the appeal against the order was also dismissed by the District Judge, Sahiwal on 11-5-1994. The petitioner challenged the order of District Judge, Sahiwal, unsuccessfully in the Revision Application which was dismissed by the learned Judge of Lahore High Court through the impugned judgment against which leave to appeal is sought by the petitioner. From the facts stated above, it is clear that the restitution has been allowed by the Trial Court under section 144, C.P.C. as a result of setting aside of the decree by the first appellate Court. There appears to be no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the High Court refusing to interfere with the order whereby possession has been ordered to be restored to respondents as a result of setting aside of the decree passed in favour of petitioner. No case for interference with the judgment of the High Court is made out. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed and leave is refused. A.A./F-400/S Leave refused. .