Pakistan Case Law
1993 CLC 1851

MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, FAISALABAD and others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1993 CLC 1851
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.W.P. No, 269 of 1991
Date1992-10-07
Judge(s)Zia Mahmood Mirza
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court by the petitioner alleging illegal dispossession from a plot in Katchi Abadi by the Municipal Corporation during the subsistence of status quo orders issued by civil courts in pending civil suits. The core legal question was whether constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 could be invoked for restoration of possession when alternate civil remedies and contempt proceedings for violation of status quo orders were already pending before the trial court. The Court held that since the petitioner had already availed an adequate and efficacious remedy by filing civil suits and contempt applications before the civil court, the constitutional petition was not maintainable for the same dispute. The key principle laid down is that where a party has already sought relief through civil suits and proceedings for the violation of status quo orders, the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court will not be invoked to agitate the identical grievance.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether constitutional jurisdiction is maintainable when alternate civil suits and contempt proceedings regarding the same dispute are already pending?
  • Can a petitioner invoke writ jurisdiction for illegal dispossession in violation of a status quo order when the trial court is competent to grant relief?
  • Is a civil suit considered an adequate and efficacious remedy against dispossession during the subsistence of a status quo order?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
constitutional petitionstatus quo orderillegal dispossessioncontempt of courtalternative remedycivil suit

' Case of the petitioner is that he is in occupation of Plot No, S.45 measuring 3 Marlas and 215 sq. Ft.

Situate in Katchi Abadi near Mohallah Tariqabad, Faisalabad for a period for more than 20 years and he has raised construction thereon for his own accommodation. Apprehending that FDA at the instance of respondent No,4 would demolish the construction, the petitioner filed a civil suit against the FDA and obtained an order of status quo from the Additional District Judge on 8-10-1988. It is further alleged that the petitioner filed another suit against respondent No, 3, a local Councillor and respondent No, 4 Abdul Hamid who attempted to demolish the construction raised by the petitioner and in that suit also, an order of status quo was passed on 26-12-1990 by Mr. Atta Ullah Kauser, learned Civil Judge, Faisalabad. Further allegation made by the petitioner is that despite the orders of status quo the respondent Councillor after obtaining the orders from Mayor of the Corporation got his house demolished at the instance of respondent No,

4. He filed an application for contempt of Court which was pending. Grievance of the petitioner is that he has been illegally dispossessed from the disputed property by the respondent Corporation and he has, therefore, approached this Court through this Constitutional petition praying that action of the respondents, in ejecting him from the disputed plot be declared to be without lawful authority and the respondent Corporation be directed to restore possession of the disputed property to him.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not denied that the two suits are still pending and in both the suits, according to the petitioner, orders of status quo have been passed. If the petitioner has been dispossessed despite the orders of status quo passed by the Civil Court, his remedy lay in moving the same Court which remedy the petitioner has already availed and his application for contempt proceedings is stated to be pending before the Civil Court. He should, therefore, pursue the application to its logical end. Learned counsel has expressed his apprehension that the Civil Court may not restore the possession of the property to the petitioner.

The apprehension does not appear to be well based. If the Civil Court finds that the petitioner was dispossessed ejected during subsistence of the order of status quo it will certainly direct the restoration of the possession to him. Since the petitioner has already taken recourse to the remedy of civil suits which in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be said to be not adequate or efficacious, he is not entitled to agitate the same dispute in constitutional jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs.

Cited by 9 cases

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