| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 349 2004 SLD 349 2004 SCMR 113 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 1795 and 1796-L of 1998, decided on 26th July, 2001. (On appeal from the judgment, dated 21-8-1998 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Civil Revisions Nos. 976 of 1984 and 977 of 1984)
SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH AND TANVIR AHMED KHAN, JJ
Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with S. Abul Asim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Rana M. Nasrullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent. Sahibzada Anwar Hameed, Advocat
Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 1795 and 1796-L of 1998, decided on 26th July, 2001. (On appeal from the judgment, dated 21-8-1998 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Civil Revisions Nos. 976 of 1984 and 977 of 1984)
SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH AND TANVIR AHMED KHAN, JJ
Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with S. Abul Asim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Rana M. Nasrullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent. Sahibzada Anwar Hameed, Advocat
RIFFAT MASOOD
VS
CANTONMENT BOARD OF SIALKOT and others
Law:
Section: 273,273(1)
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42
Cantonments Act (II of 1924)----- ----S.273---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42---Declaratory suit--Failure to give notice prior to filing of suit---Effect---Originally suit for injunction was filed by the plaintiff but subsequently it was converted into suit for declaration---Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that no notice under S.273 of Cantonments Act, 1924, had been given by the plaintiff---Appellate Court as well as High Court maintained the and decree passed by Trial Court---Contention of the plaintiff was that suit for injunction should have been treated as notice to Cantonment Board---Validity---High Court had rightly found that the requirement of S.273(1) of Cantonments Act, 1924, was mandatory in nature---Mere pendency of suit could not be treated as a notice to the Board and compliance of S.273(1) of Cantonments Act, 1924---Leave to appeal was refused. ORDER TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 21-8-1998 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby Civil Revisions Nos.976 of 1984 and 977 of 1987 filed by the petitioner were dismissed. 2. We need not give the facts of the case in detail as the same have been incorporated by the learned Judge of the High Court while dismissing the civil revisions. The dispute in this case pertains to the auction of lease rights of Plots Nos.27 and 28, situated on Allama Iqbal Road, Saddar Bazar, Sialkot City. Since the lease amount did not commensurate with the market value of the plots, as such, auction proceedings were not confirmed. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction. The learned trial Court after framing Issues and hearing the parties dismissed the spit vide its judgment, dated 28-4-1982 not only on the ground of competency of its maintainability but also on merits. The petitioner assailed the said judgment in appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, vide his judgment, dated 23-10-1983. Thereafter he preferred aforesaid civil revisions in the Lahore High Court, which have been dismissed through…
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