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. 840 of 1983 decided on 29th February, 1984.
‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Possession of property‑Objection to execution pro ceedings‑History of case and reading of orders of various lower Courts who considered matter evident that objection petition was frivolous one and filed merely to prolong matter in a desperate bid to retain possession of property in dispute as long as possible‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed in circumstances.
Syed Muhammad Ali Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
Yusuf Ali Khan, Bar‑at‑Law with S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 29th February, 1984.
This case relates to an objection petition in execution proceedings. Muhammad Hanif respondent No. 1 filed a suit against Mst. Rafiqan respondent No: 2 for specific performance of an agreement to sell, a house, which had been transferred to her by the Settlement Department against a claim belonging to her and her two sons Umer Din and Hakeem‑ud‑Din (petitioners herein). The suit was decreed, whereupon Mst. Rafiqan filed an appeal, but the same was dis missed by the learned Additional/ District Judge. She then filed a second appeal in the High Court which too was dismissed. Thereafter she approached the Supreme Court but her petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. Muhammad Hanif respondent No. 1 then sought the execu tion of the decree, but Umer Din and Hakam Din petitioners the sons of Mst. Rafiqan filed on objection petition. This was, however, dismissed by the learned trial Court. The petitioner then filed an appeal. That too was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. They again challenged the said order before the High Court which was dismissed vide the impugn‑ A ed judgment. Hence the present petition. Considering the history of the case, and a reading of the orders of the various Courts which considered the matter of various stages, it is evident that the objection petition was a frivolous one and had been filed by the two sons of Mst. Rafiqan merely to prolong the matter in a desperate bid to retain the possession of the house in dispute as long as possible. As such we do not consider it a fit case fort interference.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer