| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 1360 2011 SLD 1360 2011 SCMR 313 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 721 of 2009, decision dated: 16-02-2010. (On appeal from the judgment dated 17-6-2005 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeal No. 895(R) of 1997)
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J. CH. IJAZ AHMED AND GHULAM RABBANI, JJ
Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in Civil Appeal No. 721 of 2009). Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record/Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in Civil Appeals Nos. 1014, 1114 and 1115 of 2009) Khalid Anwar, Se
Civil Appeal No. 721 of 2009, decision dated: 16-02-2010. (On appeal from the judgment dated 17-6-2005 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeal No. 895(R) of 1997)
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J. CH. IJAZ AHMED AND GHULAM RABBANI, JJ
Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in Civil Appeal No. 721 of 2009). Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record/Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in Civil Appeals Nos. 1014, 1114 and 1115 of 2009) Khalid Anwar, Se
CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN and 2 others
VS
GHULAM RASOOL and others
Law:
Section:
ORDER TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J. ---The suit of the -Petitioners-plaintiffs stands dismissed vide the impugned judgment dated 10-10-2006 and-the learned High Court in reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Court below came to the conclusion that the suit property is in possession of Education Department and a school is functioning over there in possession of the -Respondents. 2. The case of the -Petitioners is that they were allotted the suit land and that the -Respondents took forcible possession of the same since long. However, admittedly, neither any date of dispossession has been given in the plaint nor in the evidence led by the -Petitioners-plaintiffs. The report submitted by the Evacuee Trust Property Board, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 24-1-2007, is to the effect that the suit land was evacuee trust property and the same was allotted to a school and school is functioning since 1950. 3. In the afore-referred circumstances, the impugned finding of the learned High Court to the effect that the -Respondents had acquired the prescriptive title in terms of section 28 of the Limitation Act is unexceptionable. This petition having no merit is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. ORDER IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---Civil Appeals No.721 of 2009: This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 17th June, 2005, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in appeal filed by the -Respondent. 2. During hearing of the case it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that this Court had already decided issue involved in this case in Civil Petition No. 1188-L of 2004 as follows:- "6. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record. First of all we will decide the status of regulations of the -Petitioner qua statutory or non-statutory regulations. For this purpose section 54 of the State Bank Act, 1956 is reproduced hereinbelow:- (54) Powers of the Central Board to make regulations. (1) Subject to the approval of the Central Government, the Central Board may make regulations consistent with this Act to provide for all matters for which…
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