Possession of property

2022 CLC 2094 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.12Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2Suit for specific performance of agreement to sellTemporary injunction, refusal ofPossession of propertyScope

Case of appellant was that he had entered into an agreement to sell with the respondent as a result of which he had obtained possession of the suit property

Temporary injunction was sought restraining the respondent from interfering into the possession of appellant but the same was declined vide impugned order

Validity

At this stage, for the purpose of establishing a prima facie case, it certainly belied all logic that a huge amount was paid in cash, which came to around 98.75% of the total purported consideration qua suit property in respect of which, admittedly, a family dispute was pending

More so, when no documentary proof qua financial capacity of the appellant to have such a huge amount on the date of the agreement was appended with the plaint of the suit

Apart from the agreement, no document was appended with the plaint regarding possession of the appellant

Neither in the agreement nor in the plaint, it had been mentioned as to which specific portion of the suit property had been given to the appellant when admittedly the respondent and other co-sharers had a dispute qua the same and without partition, it was not possible to hand over possession over any specific portion to the appellant

Appellant had failed to prove prima facie case in his favour

Application for grant of temporary injunction had rightly been dismissed

Appeal was dismissed.

2020 PLD 74 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 9(a)(v) & (b)Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 265-KAcquittal at any stageSummoning of material witnessesPossession of property

Accused was facing trial as benamidar of principal accused and filed application for acquittal but Trial Court set aside the same

Plea raised by authorities was that allowing application under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C. would prejudice case of other accused persons

Validity

Trial Court was fully competent to appraise, analyze and scrutinize prosecution evidence with a view to find out whether charge was groundless or that there was no satisfactory and reliable evidence to establish guilt of accused

Where there were more accused than one and one of them moved an application under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C. then in such a situation approach of court, to analyze and appraise evidence would be different from one where there is only one accused facing trial

Prosecution, in the present case, had to produce 20 more witnesses and any other witness of their choice to prove allegations against accused

High Court declined to interfere in orders passed by Trial Court as acquittal of accused could prejudice case of co-accused

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2014 YLR 63 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S.7Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-APossession of propertyTenantNecessary partiesDefiance of court orders

Petitioner claimed to be lawful tenant of shop in question and was aggrieved of dispossession order passed by Additional Sessions Judge

Validity

Continuous defiance of Court orders and alleged simultaneous dispossession first on 12-1-2011, second on 11-7-2012 and then on 4-3-2013

Petitioner admitted fact of having possession of shop in question which was taken over by police in pursuance to order of Additional Sessions Judge

Petitioner also claimed to have possession of the shop since 11-7-2012 and it was the date when allegedly owner was dispossessed second time

Petitioner was a necessary party to be impleaded as respondent to second complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, as he was admitting possession of shop in question since 11-7-2012, the date of alleged second dispossession

High Court directed the Trial Court to proceed with second complaint of the owner, after arraying petitioner as one of the respondents

Petition was disposed of accordingly.