10/30/2024

12/2 | New claim after 12/2. The High Court declared that all objections and issues of rights relating to ownership and possession of the property shall be resolved through writ petitions and objections instead of filing separate suits. 2024 C L C 340


New claim after 12/2.
 The High Court declared that all objections and issues of rights relating to ownership and possession of the property shall be resolved through writ petitions and objections instead of filing separate suits.
2024 C L C 340





1. کیس پس منظر: جواب دہندگان نے معاہدے کی تکمیل، مستقل حکم امتناعی اور اعلان کے لئے کمشنر اور دیگر کے خلاف مقدمہ جیتا، جسے اپیل اور سول نظر ثانی میں برقرار رکھا گیا۔


2. فیصلے کا نفاذ: جواب دہندگان نے فیصلے کے نفاذ کی درخواست دی، جس پر عملدرآمد کے دوران درخواست گزار نے فیصلے کو چیلنج کیا۔


3. درخواست گزار کے اعتراضات: درخواست گزار نے سی پی سی کے تحت فیصلہ منسوخ کرنے کی درخواست دی، جو ناقابل سماعت قرار دے کر مسترد کردی گئی۔


4. عدالت کا قانونی نکتہ: عدالت نے کہا کہ جائیداد کی ملکیت اور قبضے سے متعلق مسائل کو اعتراضات یا درخواست کے ذریعے حل کیا جانا چاہیے، الگ مقدمے کے ذریعے نہیں۔


5. حتمی فیصلہ: درخواست گزار کے اعتراضات مختلف عدالتوں میں پہلے ہی مسترد ہوچکے تھے، اور قانونی خامی نہ ہونے کے باعث تمام درخواستیں خارج کر دی گئیں۔


اس کیس کا تعلق بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ کے فیصلے 2024 CLC 340 سے ہے۔ یہ فیصلہ جسٹس محمد اعجاز سواتی اور جسٹس عبداللہ بلوچ نے 28 اپریل 2022 کو دیا۔

فریقین:

درخواست گزار: محمد امین اور دیگر

جواب دہندہ: حاجی عبدالوحید اور دیگر


پس منظر:
جواب دہندگان نے کمشنر اور دیگر کے خلاف دعویٰ دائر کیا کہ انہیں ایک معاہدے کی تکمیل، مستقل حکم امتناعی اور اعلان کا حق حاصل ہے۔ اس دعوے کو عدالت نے منظور کیا اور اپیل و سول نظر ثانی میں بھی برقرار رکھا۔ پھر جواب دہندگان نے اس فیصلے کو نافذ کرنے کے لئے ایک درخواست دائر کی، جسے منظور کر لیا گیا۔ دوران نفاذ، درخواست گزاروں نے عدالت کی ہدایت پر فیصلے کی تعمیل شروع کی۔ اس پر مسٹر "اے" نے سیکشن 12(2) سی پی سی کے تحت فیصلہ منسوخ کرنے کی درخواست دی، جسے ناقابل سماعت قرار دیتے ہوئے مسترد کر دیا گیا۔

عدالت کا فیصلہ:
ریکارڈ کے مطابق جواب دہندگان کی جائیداد پر ملکیت کے حق میں کوئی شکوک و شبہات نہیں تھے۔ اس لئے وہ زمین کے قبضہ اور منافع لینے کے حقدار قرار پائے۔ درخواست گزار کے اعتراضات پر پہلے ہی متعلقہ عدالتوں نے غور کیا تھا اور یہ اعتراضات مسترد کر دیئے گئے تھے۔ اسی نوعیت کے نکات پر درخواست گزار کی درخواست بھی خارج کر دی گئی۔ عدالت نے کہا کہ سیکشن 47، آرڈر 21 کے قواعد 62 اور 103، اور سیکشن 12(2) سی پی سی کے مشترکہ اثرات کے تحت، جائیداد کی ملکیت سے متعلق سوالات کو ایک الگ دعویٰ کے ذریعے نہیں بلکہ درخواست یا اعتراض کے ذریعے حل کیا جانا چاہئے۔

درخواست گزار نے ٹرائل کورٹ کے فیصلے کو مزید چیلنج نہیں کیا، جس کے بعد یہ فیصلہ حتمی حیثیت اختیار کر گیا۔ عدالت نے کہا کہ درخواست گزار کوئی ایسی قانونی خامی ظاہر نہیں کر سکا جس سے فیصلے میں مداخلت کی ضرورت ہو۔ لہٰذا عدالت نے درخواستیں خارج کر دیں۔

وکلاء:

درخواست گزار: کامران مرتضیٰ اور طاہر علی بلوچ

جواب دہندہ: علی احمد کرد

سرکاری فریقین کے لئے: سیف اللہ سنجرانی، ایڈیشنل ایڈووکیٹ جنرل


2024 C L C 340

[Balochistan]

Before Muhammad Ejaz Swati and Abdullah Baloch, JJ

MUHAMMAD AMIN and others----Petitioners

Versus

Haji ABDUL WAHID and others----Respondents

Civil (T) Revision No.7 and C.P. (T) No.34 of 2021, decided on 28th April, 2022.

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----Ss.12(2), 47 & O.XXI, Rr.62, 103---Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877), Ss. 42, 12 & 54---Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and specific performance of agreement---Execution proceedings---Question relating to rights of claimant in attached property---Suit barred---Scope---Respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and specific performance of agreement against the Commissioner and others, which was decreed; appeal and civil revision thereagainst were filed but dismissed---Respondents filed execution petition which was allowed---During the execution proceedings the concerned judgment debtors on direction of Court concerned commenced realization of decree consequent whereof an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C., was filed by Mr. "A" for setting aside judgment and decree dated 18.11.2003, which was dismissed being not maintainable---Said applicant assailed the said order by filing civil revision but was dismissed---Said applicant filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, which was dismissed---Said applicant also filed objection pursuant to judgment/decree dated 13.02.2015, which was rejected, and appeal thereagainst was also dismissed---Pursuant to judgment/decree dated 13.02.2015, during the execution proceedings orders were passed to seize the bank account of Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, which were also assailed---Validity---Record showed that there was no cloud with regard to ownership of the respondents/decree holders in respect of properties described in the plaints, thus the respondents/decree holders were also entitled to receive mesne profit and possession of the land in terms of the decree---Objection of the petitioner on the ground of his claim described in the application/objection had twicely been attended by the Executing Court, Appellate Court and High Court---Petitioner in view of Rr. 101, 103 of O.XXI, C.P.C. had claimed protection/restoration of possession---Said Rules in their terms were analogous to S.47 and R.62 of O. XXI, C.P.C.---Combined effect of S.47, Rr. 62 & 103 of O.XXI read with S. 12(2), C.P.C. was that all questions as to title right or interest in a possession of immovable property shall be determined by the Executing Court or by way of filing application/objection and a separate suit was barred---Court while deciding objection of the petitioner upheld the order of the Trial Court, which had not been further assailed by the petitioner and the same had taken finality---Besides suit on the same averments filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the competent Court, thus the petitioner had failed to point out any material irregularity/illegality to warrant interference in the impugned order---Judgment debtors were liable to realize the decree in accordance with law and could not escape from their liability envisaged under the law---Petitions were dismissed, in circumstances.

       Kamran Murtaza and Tahir Ali Baloch for Petitioner (in Civil (T) Revision No.7 of 2021).

       Ali Ahmed Kurd for Respondent (in Civil (T) Revision No.7 of 2021).

       Saifullah Sanjrani, Additional Advocate-General for Official Respondents (in Civil (T) Revision No.7 of 2021).

       Saifullah Sanjrani, Additional Advocate-General for Petitioner (in C.P. No.(T) No.34 of 2021).

       Ali Ahmed Kurd for Respondent (in C.P. No.(T) No.34 of 2021).

 


For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.


  













 



 







































 































Revenue case in civil | The Sindh High Court held that the civil courts were not completely barred from hearing matters relating to the ownership of agricultural land. A civil court has the power to confirm a person's share or ownership of agricultural land, especially when a father's inheritance is sought. The High Court held that there is no statute barring the interference of civil courts altogether in agricultural land matters and rightly allowed the suit of the plaintiff. 2024 C L C 311


The Sindh High Court held that the civil courts were not completely barred from hearing matters relating to the ownership of agricultural land. A civil court has the power to confirm a person's share or ownership of agricultural land, especially when a father's inheritance is sought. The High Court held that there is no statute barring the interference of civil courts altogether in agricultural land matters and rightly allowed the suit of the plaintiff.
2024 C L C 311




یہ کیس قانون کے تین اہم پہلوؤں پر روشنی ڈالتا ہے:

1. سندھ لینڈ ریونیو ایکٹ، 1967 (S.172): عدالت نے یہ فیصلہ دیا کہ سول عدالتوں کو زرعی زمین کے ملکیت سے متعلق معاملات سننے سے مکمل طور پر روکا نہیں گیا۔ سول عدالت کو اس بات کا اختیار ہے کہ وہ کسی فرد کی زرعی زمین میں شراکت یا ملکیت کی تصدیق کر سکے، خاص طور پر جب مدعی نے اپنے والد کی وراثت میں حصہ مانگا ہو۔ عدالت نے کہا کہ زرعی زمین کے معاملات میں سول عدالتوں کی مداخلت کو مکمل طور پر روکنے کا کوئی قانون نہیں ہے اور مدعی کے مقدمے کو صحیح طور پر منظور کیا گیا۔


2. اسپیسفک ریلیف ایکٹ (Ss. 8 & 42) - ہبہ یا شراکت سے دستبرداری: مدعی نے دعویٰ کیا کہ درخواست دہندگان ان کی زمین کا قبضہ رکھتے ہیں اور انہیں ان کی شرعی حصہ نہیں دے رہے۔ عدالت نے دستاویزاتی اور زبانی شہادت کی بنیاد پر مدعی کے حق میں فیصلہ سنایا اور کہا کہ مدعی کے حصے سے دستبرداری یا ہبہ کا کوئی ٹھوس ثبوت موجود نہیں تھا۔


3. سی پی سی (S.115) - نظرثانی کا دائرہ اختیار اور ہم آہنگ نتائج: نظرثانی عدالت کو صرف غیر معمولی حالات میں نیچے کی عدالتوں کے ہم آہنگ فیصلوں میں مداخلت کرنی چاہیے۔ نظرثانی عدالت کا کام صرف قانون کی دوبارہ جانچ پڑتال کرنا ہے، نہ کہ شہادت کو دوبارہ جانچنا۔



اس کیس میں مدعی کا مقدمہ درست قرار دیا گیا اور درخواست دہندگان کی نظرثانی کی درخواست مسترد کر دی گئی۔




2024 C L C 311

[Sindh (Larkana Bench)]

Before Arbab Ali Hakro, J

REHMATULLAH and others----Applicants

Versus

INAYAT KHOSO and others----Respondents

Civil Revision No.S-42 of 2022, decided on 11th May, 2023.

(a) Sindh Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)---

----S.172---Jurisdiction of Civil Court---Scope---Dispute over ownership of agriculture land---There was no complete bar against civil Courts to entertain matters relating to agriculture land dispute---Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967 ('Act') did not prohibit the Civil Court from determining the title of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 to all land held jointly or from granting a declaration of joint ownership in disputed agricultural land---Plaintiff/respondent No. 1 was seeking relief for declaration regarding his share to the extent of 14-00 Acres from the suit land being the son of deceased and partition and separate possession of his share from the suit land---Applicants had denied his share in the suit land and refused to give him a share of the produce, therefore, the provisions of the Act did not support the disputation of the applicants that the suit of respondent No. 1 was barred---Apparently, Revenue Courts did not confer jurisdiction in partition proceedings where question of title was involved amongst the parties as envisaged in the provision of the Act---Suit of the respondent No. 1 was rightly decreed---Revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

       Nazir Ahmad and another v. Maula Bakhsh 1987 SCMR 61 and Messrs Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited (SNGPL) v. Messrs Noor CNG Filling Station 2022 SCMR 1501 rel.

(b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----Ss. 8 & 42---Suit for declaration and partition---Gift/hiba---Relinquishment of share---Proof---Father of the respondent No. 1 and applicants was owner of land measuring 92 acres (suit land), who passed away---Respondent No. 1 had claimed that applicants 1 and 2 were in possession of suit land, cultivating and enjoying the yield from the suit land, without paying respondent No. 1 his rightful share---Suit was decreed by the Trial Court in favour of respondent No. 1---Applicants filed appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court but same was also dismissed---Validity---Record showed that the findings of the appellate Court were based on the oral evidence of Revenue Officials and produced documentary evidence viz: mutation entries in the record of rights of respective Dehs---Applicants were unable to point out any illegality committed by the appellate Court in exercising its jurisdiction vested under the law---Only contention was that respondent No. 1 had already received his due Shariah share from the estate of deceased by way of Hiba/Gift during his lifetime, thus he was not entitled to any share as claimed in the suit---In that regard, the applicants had failed to produce pictorial evidence to show that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff relinquished his Shariah share in the suit land through Gift/Hiba in the residual estate left by the deceased---Diversely, scanning of the documentary evidence i.e. mutation entries did not reflect that respondent No. 1 had abdicated his share in suit land on the basis of said Gift/Hiba---In absence of a valid gift or relinquishment of lawful share in an inheritance under Muslim Personal Law, it could not be said whether the respondent No. 1/plaintiff relinquished his share in subject property---Suit of the respondent No. 1 was rightly decreed---Revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

       Noor Muhammad and others v. Allah Ditta and others PLD 2009 SC 198; Khamiso Khan and 6 others v. Jamaluddin 2015 MLD 356; Qamar Sultan and others v. Mst.Bibi Sufaidan and others 2012 SCMR 695; Jamaluddin and 3 others vs. Haji Gul Khan and 6 others 2012 CLC 353; Irshad alias Abdul Rahim and 2 others v. Ashiq Hussain PLD 2007 Kar. 421; Naveed Ahmad v. Iqbal Begum and others 2006 YLR 2341 and Syed Musarrat Shah and another v. Syed Ahmed Shah alias Lal Bacha and 8 others PLD 2012 Pesh. 151 ref.

       Mst. Parveen (Deceased) through LRs v. Muhammad Pervaiz and others 2022 SCMR 64 ref.

(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----S.115---Revisional jurisdiction---Concurrent findings---Scope---Concurrent findings of two courts below supporting all a preponderance of claims were not to be interfered in revisional jurisdiction, unless extraordinary circumstances were demonstrated by the applicants---Revisional Court did not sit in reappraisal of the evidence and was thus distinguishable from a Court of the appellate jurisdiction.

       Waqar Ahmed Chandio for Applicants.

       Rajesh Naraindas D. Kapoor for Respondent No.1.

       Abdul Waris Bhutto, Assistant Advocate General for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.

 



For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.


  













 



 







































 































Featured Post

Court marriage karne ka tareeka | court marriage process in Pakistan.

  What is the Court marriage meaning Court marriage typically refers to a legal union between two individuals that takes place in a co...