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. 258‑R of 1982, decided on 12th April, 1983.
(From the order dated 5th October, 1982 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, passed in R. S. A. No. 219 of 1982).
---Art. 185(3) read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10‑Dispute over transfer of evacuee property‑Prolonged and wasteful litigation already conducted by petitioner‑Latest suit found to be frivolous and vexatious‑Leave to appeal refused.
Samad Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Mumtaz Hussah; Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Akhtar Ali Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 12th April, 1983.
This petition arises from a suit filed by the petitioner for, a declaration that he being in possession of shop No. C/330, Moti Bazar, Rawalpindi, was entitled to its transfer and that the transfer made in favour of respondent No. 1 was void, and for an injunction restraining the said respondent from demanding any rent from him or taking any steps for his ejectment.
2, The shop had been transferred in the very first round of the Settle ment operations in favour of the respondent but the transfer. Was challenged by the petitioner's brothers who went up to the Supreme Court but failed throughout. The petition of Abdul Hakim, brother of the petitioner, for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court was dismissed on 8‑10‑1964 with adverse remarks. However, the petitioner, later, applied under Scheme No. VIII but his application was rejected on 24‑10‑1968 and his appeal therefrom failed on 14‑11‑1969. Nevertheless, he applied once again under Scheme No. 1X and as the same too was refused for the obvious reason that the property was not available, he brought the suit as aforesaid. The suit was dismissed for the reason, Inter alia, of want of jurisdiction. The petitioner's appeal having failed, he came to the High Court in revision which, too, was dismissad on 5‑10‑1982 by the impugned order.
3. It is obvious that what the petitioner is seeking is the cancellation of the transfer made in favour of the respondent which he cannot do by civil action. There has already been a prolonged and wasteful litigation conducted by the petitioner and his brothers for the property and the present suit is obviously not only frivolous but also vexatious. There is no case for grant of leave to appeal. The petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer