2010 PLP 138 (GBLR)
MUHAMMAD DIYAR and 6 others — Petitioners Versus ZAMINDARAN HANZAL through Representatives and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 138 (GBLR) |
| Forum / Court | Northern Areas Supreme Appellate Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, C.J. and Syed Jaffar Shah, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD DIYAR and 6 others — Petitioners Versus ZAMINDARAN HANZAL through Representatives and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 138 (GBLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 138 (GBLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Northern Areas Supreme Appellate Court bench comprising: Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, C.J. and Syed Jaffar Shah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 138 (GBLR) (MUHAMMAD DIYAR and 6 others — Petitioners Versus ZAMINDARAN HANZAL through Representatives and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Issa, Advocate for Petitioners.
- Javed Iqbal, Advocate for Respondents.
- The learned Counsel for petitioners on instruction of Abdul Ali, Chief Executive Gatko Gas Company Pvt. Ltd. present in Court states that the construction is being carried only on a small portion of land measuring two kanal and if the petitioner and Gatko Gas Company Pvt. Ltd. are allowed to complete the construction and carry out the business in the premises, at their own cost and risk with the undertaking that if ultimately final decree is passed against them in the suit, subject to the permission to remove the machinery and other moveable from the premises they will not claim ownership of building which will be treated as property of the decree holder.
Headnotes / Summary
S.42
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX. Rr. l & 2
Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art.60(13)
Raising of construction on the basis of undertaking by defendants
In view of the statements made by parties, Supreme Appellate Court modified the order of Chief Court with the direction that defendants might complete construction on an area of two kanals of disputed land at their own cost and risk, subject to the condition that on final disposal of suit, building would be treated as property of decree holder and if decree was passed against defendants, they without claiming ownership of building would be allowed to remove their movables and machinery from the premises
Supreme Appellate Court directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding ownership and character of land in dispute except construction on specified area of land, pending final disposal of suit
Petition was disposed of accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
The learned Counsel for petitioners on instruction of Abdul Ali, Chief Executive Gatko Gas Company Pvt. Ltd. present in Court states that the construction is being carried only on a small portion of land measuring two kanal and if the petitioner and Gatko Gas Company Pvt. Ltd. are allowed to complete the construction and carry out the business in the premises, at their own cost and risk with the undertaking that if ultimately final decree is passed against them in the suit, subject to the permission to remove the machinery and other moveable from the premises they will not claim ownership of building which will be treated as property of the decree holder. The learned Counsel for the respondents states that respondents have no objection to the grant of permission to the petitioners and Gatko Company to the completion of the construction of building on an area of two kanal of land subject to the condition that they will not utilize any further area in their possession till the final decision of the suit and except machinery and moveable owned by them will not claim ownership of building if suit is finally decreed against them. In view of the statement of the learned Counsel for the parties and Mr. Abdul Ali, Chief Executive Gatko Gas Company Pvt. Ltd., present in Court, we modifying the order of Chief Court direct that petitioners and Gatko Gas Company PVT Ltd, may complete the construction on an area of two kanal of disputed land at their own cost and risk subject to the condition that on the final disposal of suit, the, building will be treated as property of decree holder and if the decree is passed against the petitioners, they without claiming ownership of building will be allowed to remove their moveable and machinery from the premises. The parties in the present petition and Gatko Gas Company PVT Ltd., will maintain the status quo qua the ownership and character of land in dispute except construction on two kanal of land pending final disposal of suit. In view of the nature of dispute and the litigation between the parties we deem it proper to direct the trial Court for disposal of the suit within six months. This petition in the above terms stands disposed of. M.H./30/Glt. Order accordingly.