2004 PLP 1118 (MLD)
MANZOOR HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ZAMURRAD BEGUM and 8 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1118 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J |
| Parties | MANZOOR HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ZAMURRAD BEGUM and 8 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Pre‑emption Act (IX of 1991)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1118 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Pre‑emption Act (IX of 1991)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1118 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1118 (MLD) (MANZOOR HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ZAMURRAD BEGUM and 8 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ‑‑‑‑Ss.6 & ‑13‑‑‑Suit for pre‑emption ‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.96‑‑‑Trial Court having dismissed suit, plaintiff filed first appeal which was admitted for hearing and notice was issued to opposing party‑‑‑On date fixed for hearing of appeal, counsel for respondent was present, but none was present for appellant‑‑‑Appellate Court adjourned case for arguments giving them last and final opportunity‑‑‑None being present on adjourned date of hearing, Appellate Court proceeded to decide appeal on merits and dismissed same‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Appellate Court could have dismissed appeal when none of the parties was present for non -prosecution, but had no lawful authority to decide first appeal on merits without hearing parties.
- Muhammad Younas Bhatti for Petitioner.
- Ch. Nisar Ahmad for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th March, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
Sazia Sultana v. Razia Begum PLD 2003 Lah. 27 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Sazia Sultana v. Razia Begum PLD 2003 Lah. 27 ref. Muhammad Younas Bhatti for Petitioner. Ch. Nisar Ahmad for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th March, 2004. For the order I propose to pass in this civil revision; I will not be referring to the pleaded facts of the case. Suffice it to say that feeling aggrieved of judgment and decree, dated 13‑7‑2000 passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit filed by the petitioner for possession of the suit‑land by pre‑emption, the petitioner filed a first appeal, which was admitted to hearing and notice was issued. The appeal came up for hearing on 15‑1-2001 when only learned counsel for the respondents was present and none present for the appellant. Learned Addl. District Judge, Rawalpindi, adjourned the case to 16‑1‑2001 for arguments as, last and final opportunity stating that if counsel for the parties do not address arguments he will decide the appeal after perusing the record. On 16‑1‑2001 none was present when learned Additional District Judge proceeded to decide the appeal on its merit and to dismiss the same vide judgment and decree of the said date. 2 Notice was issued to the opposite party after' noting the contention that the appeal could not have been heard and decided on merits in the absence of the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondents has put‑ in appearance and has not much to say to oppose this civil revision.
3. Now impugned judgment and decree is without jurisdiction. Learned Addl. District Judge could have dismissed the appeal when none of the parties was present, for non‑prosecution but he had no lawful authority to decide the first appeal on merits without hearing the parties. Reference may be made to the case of Sazia Sultana v. Razia Begum (PLD 2003 Lahore 27). The civil revision is accordingly allowed and the impugned judgment and decree, dated 16‑1‑2001 of the learned Addl. District Judge, Rawalpindi, is set aside. The result would be that the first appeal filed by the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending before the learned District Judge, Rawalpindi, the parties and their learned counsel shall appear before the learned' District Judge Rawalpindi on 17‑5‑2004. The records will be summoned and learned District Judge shall either himself or such a learned Addl. District Judge to whom the case will be entrusted for same day shall hear the parties, examine "the records and decide the appeal. No order as to costs. A copy of this judgment be immediately remitted to the learned District Judge Rawalpindi. H.B.T./M‑195/L Revision allowed.