| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 2557 2019 SLD 2557 2019 PLJ 613 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 836 of 2013, decision Dated: 20.06.2019.
RASAAL HASAN SYED, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mr. Tahir Iqbal Chaudhary, Advocate
Respondent(s) by: Mr. Yaqoob Ali Chaudhary, Advocate
Civil Revision No. 836 of 2013, decision Dated: 20.06.2019.
RASAAL HASAN SYED, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mr. Tahir Iqbal Chaudhary, Advocate
Respondent(s) by: Mr. Yaqoob Ali Chaudhary, Advocate
ALI KAMRAN
VS
MUHAMMAD ASLAM
Law: Partition Act, 1893
Section: 4
Law: Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act, 2012
Section: 17
Partition Act, 1893-- ----S. 4--Evacuee Property--Transfer of property by settlement department--Sale of property to extent of share--Agreement to sell--Suit for specific performance--Decreed--Suit for partition--Appointment of local commission--Report of local commission--Filling of application--Dismissed--Appeal--Dismissed--Suit was decreed--Execution proceedings--Undivided family--Throughout trial petitioners or their predecessor never pressed into service their alleged claim that property was an undivided dwelling belonging to "undivided family" which could not be partitioned or that they were willing to buy share/portion of Bashir Ahmad (predecessor of respondent Nos.1 to 3) or that Court should allow relief in terms of Section 4 of Act and dispose of matter accordingly--Strangely enough petitioners opted to bring an application under Section 4 of Act on 30.9.2009 i.e. after a period of approximately 23 years from sale in favour of Bashir Ahmad and after 11 years from date of decree in partition suit--Petitioners obviously could not be allowed to sleep over matter for 23 years and then rouse from slumber and expect indulgence of Court for favorable consideration--Conduct of petitioners and their predecessor demonstrated a case of waiver and in result they were estopped to raise plea under Section 4 of Act--Facts of this case reflect a pathetic picture and condition of respondent litigants, who despite having a decree in their favour since 23.6.1998 were unable to reap fruits of decree and were being prevented from enforcing their rights by introduction of one frivolous objection petition after another--Bashir Ahmad, predecessor of respondent Nos.1 to 3 who was fighting for his rights, died in hope of getting relief but was fortunate enough to avail benefit of decree--It is an extreme example of abuse of process of law and Courts where -debtor successfully obstructs implementation of decree for 21 years--Sale in favour of Bashir Ahmad was made in terms of agreement of 1987--Suit was decreed in 1993, suit for partition filed by him was decreed in 1998, but application under Section 4 of Act was filed on 30.9.2009, after eleven years of decree but with a…
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