Pakistan Case Law
1975 SCMR 196

NOOR MUHAMMAD ETC. vs ABDUL GHAFOOR ETC

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1975 SCMR 196
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No, 272 of 1973
Date1974-10-05
Judge(s)Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Salahuddin Ahmed
Authored bySalahuddin Ahmed
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for special leave to appeal was filed with a delay of 147 days against an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a review petition concerning evacuee property. The core legal question involved the validity of wills executed regarding evacuee property and the jurisdiction of civil courts to adjudicate disputes concerning the same. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that civil courts lack jurisdiction to decide disputes regarding evacuee property, rendering the plaintiff's suit and subsequent review application incompetent. Consequently, the petition was dismissed both on the ground of being barred by limitation and on merits, affirming that no valid claim or decree can be sustained in respect of evacuee property through civil courts.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to decide a dispute regarding evacuee property?
  • Can a time-barred petition for special leave to appeal be entertained without sufficient cause?
evacuee propertyjurisdiction of civil courttime-barred petitionspecial leave to appealreview petition

ORDER

1. ' SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-.This petition for special leave to appeal filed on the 2nd of July 1973, has become barred by 147 days. It is from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissing a review petition on the 17th of April 1973.

2. ' It appears that the property in dispute was evacuee property, and it was allotted to one Majid who gave it by a 'will' in the year 1954 to his sister-in-law, who in turn gave it by 'will' to her brother's son.

3. The petitioner brought a suit challenging the validity of the two 'wills', and the suit was decreed. The decree was affirmed in appeal by the learned District Judge. On second appeal before the High Court, the suit was dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction inasmuch as the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide a dispute regarding evacuee property. The review application was from this order, and it was rightly' dismissed as no could be made in respect of evacuee property.

4. ' The petition is thus not only barred by limitation but has no merit in it, and it is accordingly dismissed.

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