Pakistan Case Law
1984 SCMR 251

PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, LAHORE vs WALTER L. MALL

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1984 SCMR 251
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No, 67-R of 1983
Date1983-10-29
Judge(s)Muhammad Haleem, Actg. C. J., Zaffar Hussain Mirza and Mian Burhanuddin Khan
ResultCase remanded
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a dispute over whether a piece of land forms part of Khasra No. 673 or Khasra No. 674. The petitioner claimed the land under Khasra No. 674, while the respondent claimed it was included in Khasra No. 673 purchased via a registered sale-deed and a subsequent rectification deed. The trial court dismissed the respondent's suit for permanent injunction, but the appellate court ruled in favor of the respondent, and the revision was dismissed. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court found the record and the Local Commissioner's report inconclusive regarding the precise demarcation of the disputed land. Consequently, with the agreement of the parties' counsel, the Supreme Court set aside the lower decisions, converted the petition into an appeal, and remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh determination and further evidence.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether the disputed land forms a part of Khasra No. 673 or Khasra No. 674?
  • Can a case be remanded to the trial court for fresh determination when the appellate court's report and record are inconclusive?
land disputekhasra demarcationremandpermanent injunctionsale-deed rectification

ORDER

1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C. This case the question which requires determination is as to whether the disputed piece of land is a part of Khasra No, 673 or 674. Khasra No, 674 measures 12 Kanais and stands transferred to the petitioner. The respondent claimed that the disputed land was included in Khasra No, 673, which was purchased by him pursuant to a registered sale-deed, dated 27-9-1974 from one Muhammad Rafi. Four years after the execution of this document another deed was executed by way of rectification of the error as the Khasra number was not mentioned in the sale-deed.

2. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the respondent for permanent injunction, but on appeal he succeeded and the revision filed against it was dismissed. The appellate Court had relied on the report of the Local Commissioner, but we are not satisfied either from this report or from the other material on the record as to whether the disputed land is a part of Khasra No, 673 or 674, and, accordingly, in our view this question requires further probe. This being so, the learned counsel for the parties agreed that the case be remanded to the trial Court for the determination of this question afresh. It will be open to the parties to lend such evidence as they might think proper for resolving the controversy.

3. ' The petition is, therefore, converted into an appeal and disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.