MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and others- vs UBEDUL HAQ and others
This matter concerns a series of Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal (C.P.L.As.) arising from a consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court involving four civil revision petitions. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the defendants had encroached upon the property owned by the plaintiffs, a factual controversy that remained unresolved by the subordinate courts. The High Court, finding the previous adjudications insufficient to settle this dispute, set aside the judgments of the subordinate courts and remanded the matter to the trial court with specific directions to proceed in accordance with the procedural requirements set out in Rules 1, 2, and 3 of Chapter 1-M of Volume V of the High Court Rules and Orders. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no illegality in the High Court's decision to remand the case for a proper determination of the encroachment issue. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the High Court's holding that a remand was necessary to resolve the underlying factual controversy regarding property encroachment through the prescribed procedural mechanisms.
- Can a High Court remand a matter to the trial court when the core issue of property encroachment remains unresolved by subordinate courts?
- Is it appropriate for a High Court to direct proceedings under Chapter 1-M of the High Court Rules and Orders to resolve factual disputes regarding encroachment?
- Rule 1, Chapter 1-M, Volume V, High Court Rules and Orders
- Rule 2, Chapter 1-M, Volume V, High Court Rules and Orders
- Rule 3, Chapter 1-M, Volume V, High Court Rules and Orders
ORDER
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- This order shall dispose of C.P.L.As. Nos.806, 807, 808 and 809-L of 2003 as they arise out of the same consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 23-1- 2003 passed in Civil Revisions Nos.1262, 1263, 1264 and 1265 of 1995.
2. Having examined all aspects of the matter we find that the real question which required determination in the suits filed which had led to the above mentioned revision petitions, was whether the defendants had or had not encroached upon the property owned by the plaintiffs. For the reasons recorded therein the learned Judge in Chambers and further found that the said controversy had remained unresolved. It was the view of the learned Single Judge that the only way to settle the issue was to proceed in terms of Rules, 1, 2 and 3 of Chapter 1-M of Volume V of the High Court Rules and Orders and the Honourable High Court directed accordingly after setting aside the judgments of the learned subordinate Courts and by remanding the matter back to the learned trial Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any illegality in the impugned judgment of the Honourable High Court which could justify grant of leave in the matter. These petitions are, therefore, dismissed. . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.