1990 PLP 959 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD DIN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NOOR ALAM and 6 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 959 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD DIN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NOOR ALAM and 6 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 959 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 959 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 959 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD DIN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NOOR ALAM and 6 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Sajad Raza Jafri, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th August, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 1‑2‑1986 of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No. 266‑D of 1986). ‑‑‑‑S. 10‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Alienation by subsequent allottee‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Plaintiffs' suit was that they being first allottee any alienation by one of the defendants in favour of other defendants, on the basis of an illegal subsequent allotment in his favour, would not affect plaintiffs rights on the basis of first allotment‑‑‑Plaintiffs suit was decreed throughout‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑High Court's reliance on question of jurisdiction, on the law laid down by Supreme Court in Mian Muhammad Latifs case as reported in PLD 1970 SC 180, was fully justified‑‑‑Defendants could not take any advantage on account of alleged inaction of plaintiffs in not getting documentation done in their favour within reasonable time‑‑‑Trial Court's reliance on the dictum of Supreme Court in Dost Muhammad's case reported as 1976 SCMR 112, on the question of re allotment was fully justified‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Mian Muhammad Latif v. Province of West Pakistan PLD 1970 SC 180; Dost Muhammad and others v. Mat. Badal Jan and others 1976 SCMR 112 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Mian Muhammad Latif v. Province of West Pakistan PLD 1970 SC 180; Dost Muhammad and others v. Mat. Badal Jan and others 1976 SCMR 112 rel. Syed Sajad Raza Jafri, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th August, 1989. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑‑A defendant in a suit for declaration and injunction has sought leave to appeal; against the dismissal by the High Court, of his Civil Revision. It had arisen out of suit of the respondents side claiming that they being first allottee any alienation by respondent No. 6 the petitioner's co‑defendant, on the basis of an illegal subsequent allotment in his favour, would not affect their (the plaintiffs) rights on the basis of the first mentioned allotment. The plaintiffs/respondents' suit having been decreed throughout the petitioner has now sought leave to appeal. The learned counsel has raised the question of jurisdiction but in the circumstances of the case the reliance of the High Court on Mian Muhammad Iratif v. Province of West Pakistan P L D 1970 SC 180, was fully justified. Be that as it may, we asked the learned counsel if the petitioner has any case on merits. He then argued that although the respondents' predecessor‑in‑interest was prior allottee and the judgment of the trial Court in this behalf might not be assailable yet it was the duty of the respondents to get the documentation done in their favour within reasonable time. They having failed to do so led to the subsequent complications. After hearing the learned counsel on this aspect of the matter we are satisfied that the petitioner could not take any advantage on account of so‑called alleged inaction of the respondents side. The reliance by the trial Court on Dost Muhammad and others v. Mst. Badal Jan and others 1976 SCMR 112 on the question of re‑allotment was fully justified. There being no merits in the petitioner's plea on the question of allotment and entitlement leave to appeal is refused. AA./M‑1137/S Leave refused.