1984 PLP 559 (SCMR)
UMER DIN AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 559 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | UMER DIN AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 559 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 559 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 559 (SCMR) (UMER DIN AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Muhammad Ali Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Yusuf Ali Khan, Bar‑at‑Law with S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 29th February, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Possession of property‑Objection to execution pro ceedings‑History of case and reading of orders of various lower Courts who considered matter evident that objection petition was frivolous one and filed merely to prolong matter in a desperate bid to retain possession of property in dispute as long as possible‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑This case relates to an objection petition in execution proceedings. Muhammad Hanif respondent No. 1 filed a suit against Mst. Rafiqan respondent No: 2 for specific performance of an agreement to sell, a house, which had been transferred to her by the Settlement Department against a claim belonging to her and her two sons Umer Din and Hakeem‑ud‑Din (petitioners herein). The suit was decreed, whereupon Mst. Rafiqan filed an appeal, but the same was dis missed by the learned Additional/ District Judge. She then filed a second appeal in the High Court which too was dismissed. Thereafter she approached the Supreme Court but her petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. Muhammad Hanif respondent No. 1 then sought the execu tion of the decree, but Umer Din and Hakam Din petitioners the sons of Mst. Rafiqan filed on objection petition. This was, however, dismissed by the learned trial Court. The petitioner then filed an appeal. That too was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. They again challenged the said order before the High Court which was dismissed vide the impugn‑ A ed judgment. Hence the present petition. Considering the history of the case, and a reading of the orders of the various Courts which considered the matter of various stages, it is evident that the objection petition was a frivolous one and had been filed by the two sons of Mst. Rafiqan merely to prolong the matter in a desperate bid to retain the possession of the house in dispute as long as possible. As such we do not consider it a fit case fort interference. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.