Pakistan Case Law
1991 SCMR 1644

Haji ABDUL WAHAB vs Mst. RAMZAN BIBI And Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1991 SCMR 1644
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.426 of 1986
Date1989-08-20
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. Usman Ali Shah
ResultOrder accordingly
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the First Appellate Court and the High Court, which decreed the respondents' suit for declaration relating to the allotment of State land. The petitioner sought to non-suit the respondents primarily on the ground of limitation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and considered it proper to examine whether the suit filed by the respondents was within limitation and whether it was a suit for mere declaration or whether it was essential for the plaintiffs to seek the setting aside of certain orders passed in favour of the petitioner, either directly or indirectly. Pending further examination, the Court granted security terms regarding the possession of the land in dispute, directing the petitioner to furnish security for mesne profits to the satisfaction of the executing or trial court.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether the suit filed by the respondents was within limitation?
  • Whether the suit was for mere declaration or if it was essential for the plaintiffs to seek setting aside of certain orders passed in favour of the defendant side?
limitationdeclaration suitstate land allotmentleave to appealmesne profits

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J: --The respondents/plaintiffs' suit for declaration relating to allotment of State land having been decreed the petitioner who now seeks leave to appeal has failed before the First Appellate Court and the High Court. The main question on which the petitioner wanted to non-suit the respondents side is one of limitation.

2. After hearing the learned counsel we consider it proper to examine; whether the suit filed by the respondents side was within limitation; and the related question; whether, it was for mere declaration or it was essential for the plaintiffs to seek setting aside of the certain orders passed in favour of the petitioner/defendant side, if not directly at least indirectly.

3. Security Rs.5,000 The petitioner if still in possession of the land in dispute, the same shall not be disturbed, provided he furnishes security for the mesne profits from the date of the judgment of the High Court, to the satisfaction of the executing/trial Court, within a reasonable time.

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