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. 69 of 1972, decided on 12th May 1972.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab, Lahore, dated the 19th January 1972, in L. P. A. No. 303 of 1971).
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958),
Sehed., Part I‑‑Transfer of house‑Dispute relat ing to transfer litigated and fought up to Supreme Court level- Unsuccessful party making attempt to re‑open case by approaching Deputy Settlement Commissioner for demarcation of property and managing to obtain favourable report from him that property was impartible‑Such order being set aside by higher Settlement authorities, High Court agreeing, subsequent approach to Supreme Court, held, amounted to abuse of process of Court.
Qureshi Mehmood Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Wali Muhammad Khawaja, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 12th May 1972.
The dispute relates to the transfer of a house under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958.
The Settlement authorities divided the house and transferred it to the petitioner and the respondents according to their respective possession. This order was maintained by the High Court in writ jurisdiction and leave to appeal was refused by this Court.
The petitioner again approached the Deputy Settlement Commissioner with the prayer that his part of the house may be demarcated and managed to obtain a report from him that the house was impartible. This was a clumsy attempt to reopen the case. The higher Settlement authorities did not agree with the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the High Court has again dismissed the writ petition fled by the petitioner to call in question the orders passed by the Settlement authorities. He now seeks leave to appeal.
It is sufficient to state that the petitioner has under the disguise of "demarcation" tried to abuse the process of the Court and should think himself fortunate that the High Court has not' taken action against him for resorting to such a course.
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