2004 PLP 1610 (SCMR)
ABDUL RAUF — Petitioner Versus SANAULLAH anted others — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1610 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Falak Sher, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL RAUF — Petitioner Versus SANAULLAH anted others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1610 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1610 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Falak Sher, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1610 (SCMR) (ABDUL RAUF — Petitioner Versus SANAULLAH anted others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rafique Javed Butt, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 23rd December, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court. Lahore, dated 21-5-2003 passed in Civil Revision No. 836 of 2003).
S. 12
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. I, R. 10
Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell
Application under O. I, R.10. C.P:C, for impleading as party
Land purchased by applicant was falling in a Khewat, which had no nexus with Khewat of disputed land-- Impugned judgment refusing such application did not suffer from any illegality
Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave to appeal. Respondent No. 1 in person.
Judgment & Decree
TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.
Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 21-5-2003 whereby Civil Revision No.836 of 2003, filed by the petitioner was dismissed in limit.
2. Facts briefly are that the petitioner moved an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. seeking his impleadment as a party in a suit for specific performance titled as "Sanaullah v. Rashid Ahmed and others". It was his case that he purchased land measuring 4 Marlas out of the disputed property through a registered sale-deed on 4-1-1984, on the basis of record of rights pertaining to the years 1966-1967 wherein the number of the property was given as Khewat No. 18, Khatuni Nos. 69 to
70. However, according to the learned counsel these numbers were changed subsequently.
3. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. We have noticed that subsequent to the record of rights pertaining to the years 1966-1967 different Khewat Numbers had been given in the record of rights pertaining to the year, 1966-67, 1980 81 and 1984-85. We fail to understand how the petitioner in the years 1984-85 claimed any right in Khewat No.36 Khatuni Nos. 190-191 when in fact the purchased land was in Khewat No.
18. Learned counsel for the F petitioner has failed to point out that Khewat No. 18 of his sale-deed had any nexus with Khewat No.36 of the disputed land. He has also failed to point out any illegality, misreading or non-reading in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court.
4. Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petition being devoid of any force, is hereby dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused. S.A.K./A-51/S Leave refused.