Pakistan Case LawMUHAMMAD SIDDIQUIE And Others Versus RAO MANZOOR AHMAD And Other
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' writ petition regarding the transfer of evacuee property. The dispute concerns the allotment of specific units of evacuee property, namely shops, a Chobara, and a Deori, which were subject to competing claims by the petitioners and respondents. The Settlement Commissioner had previously determined the property was divisible and allocated portions accordingly. However, the High Court, in a writ petition filed by the respondents, transferred the disputed shops to the respondents while rejecting the petitioners' application under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to be impleaded as a necessary party. The petitioners contended that as occupants in physical possession who had submitted transfer forms, they were necessary parties whose entitlement was ignored. The Supreme Court found that the petitioners' case regarding their status as necessary parties and their entitlement to the property raised arguable points requiring further examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider the merits of the petitioners' claim and the propriety of the High Court's order.
- Are occupants in physical possession of evacuee property who have submitted transfer forms necessary parties in writ petitions concerning the allotment of that property?
- Can a High Court dismiss an application under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without considering the applicant's claim of entitlement and possession?
ORDER
S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 11-2-1986, whereby the petitioners' writ petition against the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 16-8-1976, was dismissed.
Rao Abdur Rashid predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 6 was in possession of Chobara of evacuee property No. 80/30, Ward No.2 Khankah Dogran consisting of two shops on the front, Chobara over it and 5 rooms behind the shops. Ghulam Muhammad was in possession of 5 rooms in the rear portion and two shops were originally in possession of Ali Sher and Khushi Muhammad which were taken over by the petitioners in 1965. On the order of the learned Settlement Commissioner dated 16-8-1978 the shops were considered as separate units available for disposal. All the parties filed Form C.H. For the allotment of the respective portions in their occupation. After protracted litigations amongst the parties on remand of the case by the High Court to the Settlement Commissioner, it was held that the property is divisible and vide his order dated 16-8- 1978 transferred the Chobara over the shops and Deori to respondents Nos. I to 6, rear portion of the house being a separate unit was transferred to Ghulam Muhammad and the two shops were declared as separate units available for disposal.
Respondents Nos. 1 to 6 filed Writ, Petition No. 154-R/79 without impleading the petitioners as necessary party which was dismissed as against Ghulam Muhammad. The present petitioners being in possession of the shops filed Misc. Petition under Order I, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. To be included as necessary party in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge of the High Court while accepting the writ petition transferred the two shops to respondents Nos. 1 to 6 alongwith Chobara and Deori and rejected the application of the petitioners under Order I, Rule 10 of C.P.C. Vide his order dated 11-2-1986.
The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners being in physical possession of the shops at the relevant time and have already submitted their forms for the transfer of the shops were necessary parties but the learned High Court ignored to consider them an aggrieved party and erroneously dismissed their application under Order I, Rule 10 of C.P.C. And allotted the shops in dispute to the respondents without considering the entitlement of the petitioners. After hearing the learned counsel we think that his case is arguable and needs consideration of this Court. Leave to appeal is granted. Security Rs.5,000. Appeal shall be made ready on the present record with permission to parties to file necessary documents, if any.
Judges on this bench
- Saad Saood Jan2,559 judgments
- Syed Usman Ali Shah154 judgments