2021 PLP 1974 (MLD)
AMMER BAKHSH through L.Rs. — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR through Legal Heirs and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2021 PLP 1974 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AMMER BAKHSH through L.Rs. — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR through Legal Heirs and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2021 PLP 1974 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2021 PLP 1974 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Multan Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2021 PLP 1974 (MLD) (AMMER BAKHSH through L.Rs. — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR through Legal Heirs and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Tariq Rajwana for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Ashraf Qureshi for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S.144
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.8
Trial Court allowed the application under S.144, C.P.C, moved by the respondents with direction to recover possession of the property from the petitioner and hand over the same to the respondents, which order was maintained by the Appellate Court
Petitioner contended that the possession of the property was throughout held by him (before filing of suit) and the possession was not as a consequence of decree passed in his favour, so respondents were required to file a regular suit for possession
Held, that in order to exercise jurisdiction under S.144, C.P.C, and allow benefit of restitution, it was required to be determined, in the present case, whether as a consequence of decree passed in favour of the petitioner he had obtained possession of suit property and on reversal of the said decree, the possession was liable to be restored on the principle of restitution to previous position or, that the petitioner was in possession of the property even prior to filing of suit as claimed by him and not as a consequence of decree passed in his favour
Such aspect had not been determined by both the Courts below and therefore, the impugned order and judgment having failed to determine the real question-in-issue were not sustainable
High Court set-aside impugned orders and judgments and remanded the matter to the Trial Court to decide the application under S.144, C.P.C, filed by the respondents afresh on its own merit
Civil revision was allowed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUZAMIL AKHTAR SHABIR, J.
Through this Civil Revision, the petitioner has called in question order dated 12.11.2013 passed by the learned trial court and judgment dated 16.06.2015 passed by the appellate court, whereby application under 144, C.P.C., filed by the respondents Nos.1 to 19 has been allowed with direction-to-recover possession of the property from the petitioner and hand over the same to the said respondents.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the learned Courts below have not taken into consideration that the possession of the property was throughout held by the petitioner before filing the suit and not as a consequence of decree passed in his favour, therefore, respondents application under 144, C.P.C., could not be allowed rather they were required to file a regular suit for possession.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has defended the orders by saying that as the decree passed by the trial court was reversed by the higher forums, therefore, application under section 144 C.P.C., was rightly allowed by the courts below.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. In order to exercise jurisdiction under Section 144, C.P.C, to allow benefit of restitution, it is required to determine whether as a consequence of decree passed in favour of the petitioner he had obtained possession of the suit property and on reversal of the said decree, the possession was liable to be restored on the principle of restitution to previous position or the petitioner was in possession of the property even prior to the filing of suit as claimed by him and not as a consequence of decree passed in his favour, which aspect has not been determined by both the courts below and therefore, the impugned order and judgment having failed to determine the real question in issue are not sustainable and are liable to be set-aside.
6. In view of the above, this Civil Revision is allowed with the result that both the afore-referred/impugned order and judgment are set-aside and matter is remanded to the learned trial court to decide the application under Section 144, C.P.C, filed by the respondents afresh on its own merits. MQ/A-48/L Revision allowed.