989 PLP 1207 (SCMR)
DIN MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus ABDUL REHMAN KHAN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 989 PLP 1207 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | DIN MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus ABDUL REHMAN KHAN‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 989 PLP 1207 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 989 PLP 1207 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 989 PLP 1207 (SCMR) (DIN MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus ABDUL REHMAN KHAN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. A.S. Zahid, (absent) Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 31st August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 6‑12‑1983 in C.R. No.671 of 1977). ‑‑‑S.2‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Remand of case to the Trial Court for a fresh decision‑ Rejection of plaint‑‑Controversy raised in the suit stood concluded by the decisions of Custodian of Evacuee Property/Settlement Authorities and the matter also stood decided under the Rent Restriction Laws‑‑Notwithstanding the bar contained in the relevant laws regarding the commencement of fresh proceedings before the Civil Courts, respondent filed suit, wherein the preliminary objection of the petitioners was upheld and plaint was rejected under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.‑‑Respondent's appeal was also dismissed but revision was allowed by the High Court‑‑Leave to appeal granted to the petitioner to examine the point with regard to the bar of jurisdiction as also other points raised in the petition.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendants side against the acceptance of the respondent's Civil Revision and remand of the case to the trial Court for a fresh decision. Learned counsel stated that the controversy raised in the suit stood concluded by the decisions of the Custodian/Settlement Authorities and the matter also stood decided under the Rent Restriction Law. And notwithstanding the bar contained in the relevant laws regarding the commencement of fresh proceedings before the Civil Courts, the respondent filed the present suit, wherein the preliminary objection of the petitioners was upheld and the plaint was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. The respondent's appeal was also dismissed. However, his Civil Revision was allowed by the High Court. Therefore, leave to appeal has now been sought. The point raised by the learned counsel with regard to the bar of jurisdiction as also other points raised in this petition require examination. Leave to appeal accordingly is granted. Security Rs.5,
000. The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file all necessary additional documents. Proceedings stayed meanwhile. M.BA./D‑40/S Leave granted.