2024 PLP 89 (SCMR)
JAVED HAMEED and others — Petitioners Versus AMAN ULLAH and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2024 PLP 89 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Qazi Faez Isa, C.J., Amin-ud-Din Khan and Athar Minallah, JJ |
| Parties | JAVED HAMEED and others — Petitioners Versus AMAN ULLAH and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan, (b) Administration of justice |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2024 PLP 89 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, (b) Administration of justice as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2024 PLP 89 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Qazi Faez Isa, C.J., Amin-ud-Din Khan and Athar Minallah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2024 PLP 89 (SCMR) (JAVED HAMEED and others — Petitioners Versus AMAN ULLAH and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Muhammad Ali Gillani, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 3 May 2017 passed by Lahore High Court Multan Bench, Multan in Civil Revision No.133-D of 2017)
Art. 23
Protracted litigation
Plaintiff dragging out litigation to continue illegal possession over defendant's property
Suit was filed by plaintiffs-petitioners on 16 September 2009 and was dismissed on 30 April 2016, that is, after a period of about 7 years
Perusal of order sheets of the trial court showed that despite repeated opportunities the petitioners-plaintiffs did not come forward to give evidence
Despite having lost thrice (in the for a below) the petitioners deemed it fit to file a frivolous petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court
Petitioners were in possession of the suit property and the apparent reason for dragging out the litigation was that the petitioners-plaintiffs were in illegal possession of land and their possession continued till date
By such tactics the respondents-defendants were deprived of their properties; their fundamental right, enshrined in Article 23 of the Constitution, to hold and dispose of property, violated, and the process of the court abused to procrastinate matters indefinitely by the petitioners who were in possession and had no intention to relinquish possession of the respondents' land
Courts must be vigilant that the process of the court is not abused, and ensure that legitimate owners are not deprived of their properties
From the date of filing of the suit till date 14 years had elapsed, and petitioners who were not entitled to the said land continue in possession of it, probably thinking there would no consequences for their actions
Such an impression must be corrected
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs of one million rupees with the direction that such amount shall constitute a charge on the property of the petitioners till such time the said amount was paid, and the petitioners shall handover the peaceful possession of the said land to the respondents.
Courts must impose costs whenever it is required, stem frivolous litigation and stop the abuse of the process of the court in perpetuating wrongdoing.
Judgment & Decree
Qazi Faez Isa, CJ. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that trial court did not give sufficient opportunities to the petitioners-plaintiffs to lead evidence and closed their side, and dismissed the suit and such decision was upheld by the appellate court and then by the revisional court, through the impugned judgment dated 3 May 2017.
2. The suit was filed on 16 September 2009 and was dismissed on 30 April 2016, that is, after a period of about 7 years. We have examined the order sheet and note that despite repeated opportunities the petitioners-plaintiffs did not come forward to give evidence. Despite having lost thrice the petitioners deemed it fit to file a frivolous petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court.
3. We enquired from learned counsel whether the petitioners are in possession and he answered in the affirmative. The apparent reason for dragging out the litigation was that the petitioners-plaintiffs were in illegal possession of land and their possession continues till date. By such tactics the respondents-defendants were deprived of their properties; their fundamental right, enshrined in Article 23 of the Constitution, to hold and dispose of property, violated, and the process of the court abused to procrastinate matters indefinitely by the petitioners who were in possession and had no intention to relinquish possession of the respondents land.
4. Courts must be vigilant that the process of the court is not abused, and ensure that legitimate owners are not deprived of their properties. From the date of filing of the suit till date 14 years have elapsed, and petitioners who were not entitled to the said land continue in possession of it, probably thinking there would no consequences for their actions. This impression must be corrected. Courts must impose costs whenever it is required, stem frivolous litigation and stop the abuse of the process of the court in perpetuating wrongdoing.
5. No illegality has been pointed out in the impugned decision. Therefore, leave to appeal is declined and consequently this petition is dismissed with costs of one million rupees, which amount shall constitute a charge on the property of the petitioners till such time the said amount is paid. The petitioners are directed to handover the peaceful possession of the said land to the respondents. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned revenue authorities who shall rectify the revenue record, if it requires rectification, and if the petitioners have not handed over the peaceful possession to the owners of the land they must ensure that it is done immediately. Copy of this order be also sent to the respondents for information. MWA/J-9/SC Petition dismissed.