Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 94 of 1968, decided on 16th October 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 19th December 1967, in Writ Petition No. 949/R of 1967).
---Art. 58(3)‑New plea‑Cannot be allowed to be raised for first time in appeal before Supreme Court Leave refused.
Gul Mukammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Attorney for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 16th October 1968.
‑The dispute in this case relates to a house consisting of three shops with three rooms and a courtyard above them and a residential portion at the back of the shops having separate access from two lanes. The petitioners were in possession of three shops and applied for their transfer to them. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred the three shops along with three rooms over them to the petitioners. Mst. Barkat Bibi, respondent No. 2 felt aggrieved by this order and succeeded in getting it and the appellate order of confirmation passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner set aside in revision by the settlement Commissioner who remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner tthen transferred the three shops to the petitioners. The residential portion above the shops was transferred to its occupant Ahmad Bux and the residential portion at the back was transferred to Muhammad Ibrahim and Mst. Barkat Bibi. On appeal the shops along with the chobaras were transferred to the petitioners. The residential portion at the back was transferred to Muhammad Ibrahim and Ahmad Bakhsh according to their respective possession. Mst. Barkat Bibi challenged this order in revision before the Settlement Commissioner who found that she being a claimant and in possession of the portion of the property was entitled to the transfer of a unit. He separated the upper portion from the main building and transferred the same to Mst. Barkat Bibi in lieu of the gallery which was in possession of Mst. Barkat Bibi. He also transferred a small bath-like room under the staircase to her. The transfer of the rest of the residential portion in favour of Ahmad Bakhsh and Muhammad Ibrahim was main tained. The petitioners challenged this order in a writ petition which was dismissed in limine.
It is contended that Mst. Barkat Bibi had no locus standi to challenge the transfer of the upper portion as she never claimed' the same. This is a new point which cannot be agitated in this Court. The Settlement Commissioner found that Mst. Barkat Bibi is a claimant and in possession of a portion of the house. The petitioners only claimed the three shops in their possession' and therefore they cannot make grievance about any transfer in favour of Mst. Barkat Bibi.
The petition is dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer