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 No. 47/11 of 1981, decided on 19th May, 1981.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 4-3-1981 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in W. P. No. 10-R/81).
-- Arts. 199 & 185 (3)-Order of Settlement authority impugned before High Court not containing any defect amenable to correction in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of High Court-High Court's order being right, no ground held exristed for interference.
S. M. Mehboob, Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Siddiqui, Advocate -on-Record for Petitioners.
Ch. Abdul Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents
Date of hearing , 19th May, 1981.
this is a petition directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 4-3-1981 whereby the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 17-1-1981 transferring a certain property to respondents I and 2 in its entirety was and interfered with. The above order was passed after protracted litigation in which the case had reached the High Court once before and a learned Single Judge of the said Court, by a detailed judgment passed on 29-5-1979, had remanded the Settlement authorities for determining the matter in accordance with the directions given therein. The said judgment of the High Court was not challenged before this Court and, therefore, had become final. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Gujranwala, in pursuance of the above remand order, passed an order on 17-1-1981 in accordance with the directions contained in the aforesaid remand order of the High Court dated 29-5-1979 and herein held in favour of respondents 1-2. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
Mr. Imtiaz Mohammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record, on behalf of respondents 4-9 submitted that the persons mentioned as petitioners 2-7 in the petition for leave do not support the petition.
Be that as it may, after going through the entire record and carefully perusing the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, which impugned before the High Court, we are satisfied that there was no defect in the said, order, which was amenable to correction in exercise of the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The High Court, therefore, rightly order. There is, accordingly, no ground for interference with the impugned judgment of the High Court in the present proceedings.
The result is that this petition must fail and is dismissed hereby..; ,
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer