1991 PLP 1644 (SCMR)
Haji ABDUL WAHAB — Petitioner Versus Mst. RAMZAN BIBI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1644 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Haji ABDUL WAHAB — Petitioner Versus Mst. RAMZAN BIBI and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1644 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1644 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1644 (SCMR) (Haji ABDUL WAHAB — Petitioner Versus Mst. RAMZAN BIBI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Sarwar; Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th August, 1989.
- Rana Muhammad Sarwar; Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 2-3-1986 in R.S.A. No.45 on 1986) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
Art. 185(3)
Respondent's/plaintiffs suit for declaration relating to allotment of State land, having finally been decreed, main question on which petitioner wanted to non-suit respondents was one of limitation
Leave to appeal granted to examine whether suit of respondents was within limitation and whether, it was for mere declaration or respondents essentially were to seek setting aside of certain orders passed in favour of petitioner, if not directly, at least indirectly-- Supreme Court further directed that if petitioner was still in possession of land in dispute, his possession should not be disturbed, provided petitioner furnished security for mesne profits from date of judgment of High Court to the satisfaction of executing/Trial Court within reasonable time.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J: ‑‑The respondents/plaintiffs' suit for declaration relating to allotment of State land having been decreed the petitioner who now seeks leave to appeal has failed before the First Appellate Court and the High Court. The main question on which the petitioner wanted to non‑suit the respondents side is one of limitation. After hearing the learned counsel we consider it proper to examine; whether the suit filed by the respondents side was within limitation; and the related question; whether, it was for mere declaration or it was essential for the plaintiffs to seek setting aside of the certain orders passed in favour of the petitioner/defendant side, if not directly at least indirectly. Security Rs.5,000 The petitioner if still in possession of the land in dispute, the same shall not be disturbed, provided he furnishes security for the mesne profits from the date of the judgment of the High Court, to the satisfaction of the executing/trial Court, within a reasonable time. H.B.T./A‑631/S Order accordingly.