2008 PLP 97 (YLR)
ABDUL GHANI and 2 others — Petitioners Versus Ch. GHULAM ABBAS — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 97 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J |
| Parties | ABDUL GHANI and 2 others — Petitioners Versus Ch. GHULAM ABBAS — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 97 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 97 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 97 (YLR) (ABDUL GHANI and 2 others — Petitioners Versus Ch. GHULAM ABBAS — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Bashir Hussain Khalid for Petitioners.
- Syed Kaleem Ahmad Khurshid and Mian Subah Sadiq Klasson for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.
This civil revision interpretation of my judgment dated 21-5-1997 in C.R.No.1134 of 1986. The dispute arose during the course of execution on objections filed by the petitioners, the learned Executing Court concluded that according to the said judgment of this Court first a partition will have to be effected and then possession of the land found to be validly purchased by the respondent is to be given. This was done vide order dated 1-11-2000. A learned Additional District Judge, Okara, allowed the first appeal filed by the respondents holding that possession is to be given and is to be retained by the respondent till such time that the Khata is partitioned.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Executing Court had correctly interpreted the judgment while learned counsel appearing for the respondent, are of the opinion that the interpretation placed on the judgment by the learned Additional District Judge is correct.
3. I have gone through the said judgment as also the decree prepared by the office pursuant thereto all that the facts of the case are recorded therein and correctness thereof has not been questioned by any of the learned counsel. Having examined the said judgment dated 21-5-1999 in C.R.No.1134/86. I have no manner of doubt in my mind that the learned Additional District Judge has very correctly interpreted the judgment. As explained by me in detail therein the land was held to be lawfully sold to the respondent by Barkat Ali deceased vide registered sale deed Exh.P.1 was to be delivered to him, while the land later sold in that particular Khasra number by Mst. Rashidan Bibi in favour of Abdul Ghani petitioner was to be adjusted to his credit in the column of ownership. The matter of retention of possession and the extent thereto was to be ultimately decided in a suit for partition. This was the true spirit of the judgment. Needless to note that the respondent had throughout been fighting for possession of the land purchased by him in the specific Khasra number. The civil revision accordingly is dismissed. No orders as to costs. H.B.T./A-202/L Petition dismissed.