Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑111 of 1971, decided on 26th August 1971.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan at Karachi, dated the 23rd April 1971, in II Appeal No. 353 of 1966).

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),

S, 9 Procedure prescribed in Sind (Requisition of Land) Act, 1947 but no Tribunal or Arbitrator appointed by Central Government to entertain owners' claim for compensation‑Jurisdiction of civil Court to entertain suit for ‑recovery of compensation for use and occupation, in circumstance, held, not ousted.

Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 26th August 1971.

MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑

The Government of Pakistan seeks leave to appeal from the judgment and decree passed by a Division Bench of the High Court whereby the judgment and decree of reversal passed by the Additional District Judge were set aside and the decree passed by the trial Judge in favour of the plaintiff‑respondent for recovery of Rs.16,150 as compensation for the use and occupation of his house requisitioned by the petitioner was restored.

The first contention raised by the learned counsel that the premises requisitioned by the Central Government were vacated on 31‑12‑1961, but the Courts below have granted compensation up to July 1962, finds no support from the record.

The second contention that no civil suit lay as special procedure was provided in the Sind (Requisition of Land) Act, 1947, is equally devoid of force as no Tribunal or Arbitrator was appointed by the Central Government to entertain the owners' claim for compensation.

Lastly it is urged that under section 79, C. P. C. no decree could be passed against the Secretary, Ministry of Rehabilitation& Works, but the Courts below have dismissed the suit both against the Pakistan Government and the Secretary as second defendant in the suit. It is not necessary to grant leave to appeal on this point as we find that no personal decree was passed against the Secretary, Rehabilitation & Works. He was joined in the suit as a representative of the Central Government and his name in the decree appears in that capacity only. He is not personally liable to pay the decretal amount.

The petition for leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.