1989 SCMR 1619 (PLP)
EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD Appellant Versus Haji IBRAHIM and 4 others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 SCMR 1619 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, CJ, Shafiur Rahman, |
| Parties | EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD Appellant Versus Haji IBRAHIM and 4 others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 SCMR 1619 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 SCMR 1619 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, CJ, Shafiur Rahman,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 SCMR 1619 (PLP) (EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD Appellant Versus Haji IBRAHIM and 4 others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Fazl‑e‑Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M. Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
- Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing: 24th April, 1989.
- 2 Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate, who represents the legal representative of Ismail respondent No.2, has by an application brought to our attention the facts that rcspondcrrt No.2 died in November, 1984 and his heir was brought on the record of the Property Register on 15‑8‑1987 but he has not been imp leaded so far. It was also pointed out by the same application that respondent No.1 Haji Ibrahim and respondent, No.3 Noor Ahmed, have also died and their Iegal representatives have not been brought on record. According to Ch. Akhtar Ali,l the appeal as constituted cannot proceed to a decision.
- 3. Ch. Fazl‑e‑Hussain, Advocate, the learned counsel representing the appellant had nothing to say on the factual submissions of Ch. Akhtar Ali.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan at Karachi, dated 11‑12‑1972 passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.16 of 1970). ‑‑‑OXXI1, R.3‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal was granted‑‑Legal representatives of one of the respondents filing application that the respondents had died and their legal representatives had not been brought on record as such the appeal as constituted could not proceed to a decision‑‑Appellant had nothing to say on such a factual submission‑‑Record of the appeal being improperly constituted and no effort having been made by appellant to correct the same, appeal, held, could not proceed‑‑Appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J‑‑The Evacuee Trust Property Board was granted leave to appeal against the judgment of the Sind and Baluchistan High Court, dated 11th of December, 1972 affirming the judgment of the Settlement Commissioner, dated 25‑10-1969 section 4(3) of the Displaced Persons under (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, holding the property in dispute, City Survey No.G/334 in Hyderabad to be not an Evacuee Trust Property or attached to any such property. 2 Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate, who represents the legal representative of Ismail respondent No.2, has by an application brought to our attention the facts that rcspondcrrt No.2 died in November, 1984 and his heir was brought on the record of the Property Register on 15‑8‑1987 but he has not been imp leaded so far. It was also pointed out by the same application that respondent No.1 Haji Ibrahim and respondent, No.3 Noor Ahmed, have also died and their Iegal representatives have not been brought on record. According to Ch. Akhtar Ali,l the appeal as constituted cannot proceed to a decision.
3. Ch. Fazl‑e‑Hussain, Advocate, the learned counsel representing the appellant had nothing to say on the factual submissions of Ch. Akhtar Ali.
4. The record of the appeal' being improperly constituted and no effort having been made by the Appellant to correct it, the appeal cannot proceed and is dismissed with no order as to costs. M.A.K./E‑11/S Appeal dismissed.