Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 3412 2007 SLD 3412 2007 PLJ 870
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.A. No. 387 of 2001, decided on 9.1.2007.
JAVED IQBAL & ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ.
Mr. M. Aman Khan, ASC for Appellants.

MIR ALAM & 2 others--Appellants

VS

SAHIBZADA & 7 others--Respondents

Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- ----S. 91--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 185(3)--Leave to appeal was granted--Public nuisance rather than of nuisance--Consent of Advocate-General--Provisions of law--Appellants filed suit in personal capacity--Relief sought of entire community--Objection raised--Maintainability of suit--Held: In case of public nuisance, consent of Advocate-General as required u/S. 91 CPC would be necessary under the law, while in case of private nuisance no such consent would be required but relief for filing a suit for injunction and damage would be available in both kinds of nuisance--Appeal was dismissed. [P. 873] A & B Judgment Abdul Hameed Dogar, J.--This appeal with leave of the Court is directed against the judgment dated 30.10.2000 passed by learned Judge in Chambers of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, whereby Civil Revision No. 278 of 1997 filed by appellants was disposed of and while setting aside the decrees and judgments of two Courts below, the plaint of the appellants was returned being not maintainable for want of sanction as required under Section 91 of the CPC. However, it was also directed that the appellants would be at liberty to file a fresh suit regarding declaration of the suit land as graveyard and perpetual injunction against any nuisance by the respondents. 2. Briefly, stated, the facts giving rise to the filing of the instant appeal are that appellants instituted a suit for declaration with perpetual injunction against the respondents in the Court of Civil Judge, Dargai, alleging therein that the land in question is reserved for graveyard. They also claimed that the respondents wanted to raise construction on it unlawfully. The respondents filed written statement and raised legal and factual objections. They also mentioned that the disputed land is not a graveyard. The trial Court framed 13 issues. Both the parties produced their evidence to prove their claims. The trial Court after conclusion of trial dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 26.5.1996. Feeling aggrieved, appellants filed appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge, Malakand which was also dismissed vide judgment and…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492