Find a Lawyer

Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 902 and 903 of 1981, decided on 4th November, 1981.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 6‑7‑1981, in W. P. 1198‑R/76 and 1224‑R/76).

‑ O. XLI, r. 23‑Remand (civil)‑Order of remand leaving scope, and giving opportunity to parties concerned, to get their grievances adjudi cated afresh in accordance with law in light of observation made and indications given by High Court‑Order, Held, suffers from no legal infirmity‑Leave to appeal refused.

A. R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

‑This order will cover two civil petitions bearing Nos. 902/81 and 903/81.

2. It is not necessary, to go into the lengthy details of the stages through which this case passed and it will be sufficient for the purpose of the order which we propose to pass that the dispute in this case is about the extent of the excess area (excess than three times the plinth area) and the respective rights and entitlement of the parties herein to have and claim the same. The matter reached the High Court in the form of two constitutional petitions namely W. P. 1198‑R/76 and 1224‑R/76 against the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 18‑5‑1976, which was accepted by the High Court vide its order dated 6‑7‑1981, whereby the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was quashed and the case was remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law. The relevant portion of the High Court order in this respect reads as follows :‑

"I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is more than two decades since the parties have been fighting for the transfer of property. Every time some loop‑hole is left for further litigation and I think even this time it appears to be so. Even otherwise I am not satisfied with the way the property in dispute has been transferred. There are certain factual aspects, which need to be resolved in a more careful and proper manner. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that the documents produced were to be ignored by me. These are relevant documents and have to be taken into consideration. But this is the task of the Settlement Authorities. I, therefore, have no option but to once again remit this case to the C. S. C. who is directed to entrust this case to a S. C. who has not previously handled this case. The S. C. shall depute some responsible and honest officer to carry out the measurements afresh in the presence of the parties and after the measurements are finalised signatures of the parties shall be obtained thereon. In case any objection is raised by any of the parties it shall be recorded and the S. C. shall then proceed to the spot, inspect the premises in the presence of the parties and finally decide the question of transfer afresh in accordance with law.

Both the Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. The parties are left to bear their own costs."

3. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal against the aforesaid orders of the High Court.

4. We have heard the learned counsel at length. We find nothing wrong with the order of remand passed by the High Court, which leave scope for and gives opportunity to the parties concerned to get their grievances adjudicated afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made and indications given by the High Court. The order suffers from no legal infirmity and in our opinion in this context it is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.

5. The two petitions are consequently dismissed hereby.

Petitions dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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