1983 PLP 317 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ZAMAN-Petitioner Versus Malik MUHAMMAD AMIR AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 317 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ZAMAN-Petitioner Versus Malik MUHAMMAD AMIR AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 317 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 317 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 317 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ZAMAN-Petitioner Versus Malik MUHAMMAD AMIR AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Haji M. S. Mahboob Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 5th July, 1982.
- Haji M. S. Mahboob Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 16-6-1982 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, in R. S. A. No. 165/82).
Art. 185 (3) read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 75 and O. 'XXVI, rr. 9 & 16-Local Commissioner-Interpretation by Local Commissioner of documents submitted to him by petitioner himself Petitioner raising objections but later withdrawing same-Report of Local Commissioner based on appraisal of such documents-Held, cannot be made a ground of grievance by petitioner in circumstances of case-Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH J.‑Leave to appeal has beep, sought from order dated 16‑6‑1982 of the Lahore High Court ; whereby a regular second appeal was dismissed in limine. The petitioner had obtained a decree for permanent injunction restraining the respondents‑defendants from having a plane sanctioned from committing an alleged encroachment on the land purported to have belonged to him. He also sought the mandatory injunction against respondent No. 1 for closing the door which he is said to have opened towards the petitioner's said land. The petitioner's suit was dismissed by a learned Civil Judge first Class. During the bearing of his first appeal, a learned District Judge appointed a Local Commissioner to measure the area covered by the houses of the parties. The Local Commissioner submitted a report which went against the petitioner. His first appeal was dismissed. During his second appeal in the High Court a grievance was made that "the learned District Judge has instead of recording his own finding relied upon the one given by the Local Commissioner and has thus delegated his judicial functions to another person". While repelling this argument the learned Judge in the High Court observed that the learned District Judge had before accepting the report of the Local Commissioner invited objections to it. The petitioner had availed of this opportunity and made some objection but later on, he withdraw the draw the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner while pressing this petition has not disputed the aforementioned facts insofar as the proceedings before the learned District Judge are concerned. He has however reiterated the argument raised before the High Court. We have gone through the relevant part of the report which is the sub ject matter of the grievance made by the petitioners. He had himself submitted certain documents for consideration by the Local Commissioner who examined the same and discovered that they did not advance his case. The interpret tic; documents by the Local Commissioner was sought by the petitioner himself. He had an opportunity of object to the report of the Local Commissioner but having raised objections he chose to withdraw the same. In these circumstances, the learned counsel has not been able to satisfy us that the petitioner can legitimately make a grievance with regard to the report of Local Commissioner. What the Local Commissioner did was on the petitioner's own asking, namely, the appraisal of certain documents placed before him. This petition has no force and accordingly is dismissed. Petition dismissed.