| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2014 SLG 130 2014 SLD 130 2014 SCMR 151 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.1138 of 2013, decision dated: 21st October, 2013.(Against the judgment dated 25-6-2009 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench passed in C.R. No.581-D of 2007)
MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, JJ
Malik Muhammad Latif Khokhar, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Gul Zarin Kiyani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents Nos.1, 2, 4 to 7, 9 to 13 and 15 to 17
Civil Appeal No.1138 of 2013, decision dated: 21st October, 2013.(Against the judgment dated 25-6-2009 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench passed in C.R. No.581-D of 2007)
MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, JJ
Malik Muhammad Latif Khokhar, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Gul Zarin Kiyani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents Nos.1, 2, 4 to 7, 9 to 13 and 15 to 17
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN
VS
Mst. AISHA and others
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.XX,R.18(2),O.XXVI,R.13
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.XX,R.18(2),O.XXVI,R.13
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XX, R. 18(2) & O.XXVI, R.13---Suit for partition of joint property---Non-serving of notice to -debtors of preliminary decree---Effect---Suit for partition was contested by some of the defendants and a preliminary decree was passed by Trial Court---Pursuant to preliminary decree, plaintiff moved Trial Court for partition to extent of his share and passing of final decree, and a Local Commission in such regard was appointed by the court, who suggested a mode of partition vide report submitted to the court---Some of the defendants took up objection to the said report, however such objections were discarded by Trial Court and a final decree was passed according to the report of the Local Commission---Appeal filed by defendants also could not succeed, however High Court in its revisional jurisdiction set aside the two decisions and remanded the matter to the Trial Court to decide objections filed by contesting defendants in accordance with law and to pass a fresh final decree---Pleas of plaintiff were that remand order was not justified as entire record was available before the Revisional Court and, therefore the matter should have been decided on basis of such record; that a number of defendants had never filed objections to the report of the Local Commission and therefore were disentitled to challenge the same, and that report of Local Commission was inconsonance with the share of the plaintiff and most of -debtors did not bother to appear before the Commission for giving their point of view in regard to mode of partition---Validity---Proceedings conducted by Local Commission for partition of property were inherently defective for the reason that no notice had been issued to all the defendants/ -debtors of the preliminary decree before finalizing the report---Besides, the record transpired that contesting defendants had filed objections to the report but such objections were not dealt with by the Trial Court in accordance with law---Such vital aspects of the matter had been taken into account by the Revisional Court while interfering with the decision of the two courts below and remanding the matter---Appeal filed by…
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