PLD 1994 Supreme Court 343 (PLP)
Haji SHER HASSAN KHAN through Legal Heirs‑‑‑Petitioner Versus HIDAYATULLAH and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | PLD 1994 Supreme Court 343 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Fazal Ilahi Khan and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Haji SHER HASSAN KHAN through Legal Heirs‑‑‑Petitioner Versus HIDAYATULLAH and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in PLD 1994 Supreme Court 343 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case PLD 1994 Supreme Court 343 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Fazal Ilahi Khan and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: PLD 1994 Supreme Court 343 (PLP) (Haji SHER HASSAN KHAN through Legal Heirs‑‑‑Petitioner Versus HIDAYATULLAH and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- appeal was granted to consider whether High Court in exercise of it extraordinary powers under ‑S. 561‑A, Cr.P.C. was justified in interfering with the order of the sessions Judge passed in revision when other adequate remedy by approaching the Civil Court was available to the aggrieve Jan Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner Nemo for Respondents
- Date of hearing: 1st November, 1993
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 561‑A & 145‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to
Judgment & Decree
FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.‑Legal heirs of Haji Sher Hassan khan petitioner are to be brought on record as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. Leave to appeal is prayed for against the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar dated 31‑7‑1993, in Cr. Misc. No.30 of 1993. Haji Sher Hassan Khan predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners made an application under section 145/146, Cr.P.C. against respondent No.l, his nephew, alleging that in order to take forceful possession of the disputed Baithak the respondent locked the same. Apprehending breach of peace he prayed for attachment of the Baithak or restoration of its possessions to the petitioner/applicant. The application was marked to the S.H.O. concerned for report. The S.H.O. after making some inquiry recommended action under section 145, Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate passed a preliminary order as required under the law. After filing their written statement both the parties‑led their evidence where after the second party was found to be in possession of the Baithak on 6‑12‑1992 i.e. 4 months prior to the filing of the application. Accordingly the second party was to retain possession. The first party challenged that in the revision before Sessions Judge, Swabi, who accepted the revision petition, set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and on the contrary declared Sher Hassan Khan to be in possession of the suit Baithak and ordered restoration of possession in his favour. The order in revision was challenged under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. in the Peshawar High Court, which was treated as a revision and on its acceptance the order of the learned Sessions Judge was set aside and that of the Magistrate restored. Hence this petition, After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner leave to appeal is granted to consider; whether the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary powers under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. was justified in interfering with the order of the Sessions Judge passed in revision when other adequate remedy by approaching the Civil Court was available to the aggrieved party. N.H.Q./S‑825/S Leave granted