Dispute as to Property

2018 CLC 664 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 41(2)(4) Proviso, 42 & 55Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976, Chap. XIICivil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.151 & 153Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionCanon of professional conduct and etiquette of advocatesMisconductDispute as to property

Constitutional petition filed for recalling an earlier order of dismissal of petition being not pressed, was not supported by affidavit

Application under Ss.151 & 153, C.P.C. was not filed on behalf of the petitioner by the advocate who also submitted his own affidavit

Validity

Lawyer earns a reputation worthy of some value by demonstrating his sincerity and honest conduct both towards his client and court in administration of justice

Upright lawyer is supposed to be an officer of court fairly assisting court in dispensing justice and not slave of his client nor greedy to serve him against law and facts

Lawyer has to contest cases on merit and merit alone, he was to adhere to standards of duties of lawyer explained in Chapt.XII (Canon of Professional Conduct and Etiquette of Advocates) of Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976

Counsel for petitioner, in the present case, filed application in question on his own without any authority from anyone

High Court directed Pakistan Bar Council to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the counsel for professional misconduct by treating contents of order as complaint under S.41(2) of Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973

High Court further directed the Tribunal for decision in terms of proviso to S. 41(4) of Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973

Court official was directed to seal the property in question and locate respondents to hand over its possession to them after proper verification

Application was dismissed in circumstances.

2014 YLR 2005 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Arts. 118, 119 & 126Dispute as to propertyOnus of proofApplication and significanceInitial burden of proof was on the party claiming title to property in possession of anotherOnus of proof could shift during the proceedings depending upon circumstancesPreponderance of evidence ruled the scale of relief

Where court was unable to decide the case on the basis of evidence produced by the parties, onus of proof would govern the decision.

2009 YLR 558 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional petitionDispute as to propertyCondemning petitioner unheard

Counsel for petitioner had submitted that petitioner was condemned unheard, as he was not associated with the proceedings, though he had vested right in the property subject matter of the petition

Petitioner had made a simple prayer that an opportunity of hearing be granted to the petitioner and thereafter the matter be decided, in accordance with law

Validity

Petitioner was condemned unheard, which was against the settled principles of law

Impugned order was set aside and the petitioner was directed to appear before the authority who would hear the petitioner and other stakeholders and thereafter would proceed to decide the matter, in accordance with law within specified period.

1999 CLC 1389 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Dispute as to Property Assertion made by petitioners were backed by title documentDenial of title by respondentsEffect

Bare denial -would not mean that respondents were claiming title in themselves.

1995 SCMR 979 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Dispute as to Property Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)

Leave to appeal was granted to consider contention of defendants that plaintiffs having claimed ownership of property in question, were bound to prove the same; that in the plaint, particulars of property with reference to house number or Khasra number were not mentioned; and that description given by them was completely different and contrary to what had been stated in plaint.