MUHAMMAD HABIB versus ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/JUSTICE OF PEACE JAMPUR, DISTRICT RAJANPUR
Section 22A & 22B Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitutional Appeals for Justice Authorities for the jurisdiction who claimed to own the plot in the dispute which was allegedly seized by the petitioner, Justice. Prayed for the restoration of the offseason. In the possession of the said plot, Justice of Peace reviewed the dispute as an Adalat District Judge after receiving this notice from Patwari when the applicant was in illegal possession if the complainant had to pay the plot by the applicant. Had been expelled, should have filed. On the basis of his entitlement, a case under section 8 of the Special Relief Act, 1877, if he was not interested in plotting a dispute, speedy recovery of possession was available under section 9 of the Special Relief Act 1877. ? The remedy available to the complainant was to file a private complaint under Section 3 of the Unlawful Settlement Act of 2005, but despite the benefits, the merits of alternative treatment, the complainant had filed the Additional District Judge / Executive Justice of Peace of Justice of the Sikhs. The jurisdiction requested, after admitting the matter, passed an application for recovery of the possession of immovable property on an application. In violation of the provisions of Section 9 of the Special Relief Act, 1877, and thus the duties of the civil court. There is also no provision of the law that gives an official the power or authority to pass a decree to the Justice of the Peace or Adel Sessions and the District Judge. An Adalat District Judge / Executive of Justice adopts a self-styled procedure in this case, seizing immovable property exclusively on a petition.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
