| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 1580 2022 SLD 1580 2022 PLJ 433 |
Lahore High Court
C.R. No. 32758 of 2019, decided on 22.9.2021.
MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J.
Sahibzada Muzaffar Ali, Advocate/Legal Advisor for Petitioners. M/s. Rana Intezar and Arslan Yousaf, Advocates for
Respondent.
C.R. No. 32758 of 2019, decided on 22.9.2021.
MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J.
Sahibzada Muzaffar Ali, Advocate/Legal Advisor for Petitioners. M/s. Rana Intezar and Arslan Yousaf, Advocates for
Respondent.
LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (LDA) through D.G. others
VS
IKRAMULHAQ QURESHI--Respondent
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42,54,55
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 155
Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)-- ----Ss. 42, 54 , 55--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S. 155--Suit for declaration, permanent , mandatory injunction--Demolishing of construction--Right to file written statement was closed--Suit was decreed--Non-framing of issues--Exercise of jurisdiction--Non-speaking --Direction to--Trial Court proceeded to decide suit by simply observing that evidence in rebuttal was not available on record from petitioners’ side--It is settled principle of law that no could be passed without discussing evidence--Appellate Court has also not thrashed out available evidence and applied its judicial mind to controversy involved in lis--If Court fails to give its own reasons, it would be deemed that Court had acted with material irregularity and illegality and in that eventuality, decision would not be sustainable in eye of law--It is now well-settled that non-speaking is to be discouraged and Court is required to give reasons while passing s--It must supply adequate reasons for conclusion arrived at and should reflect applicationof judicious mind by Judge, and not to be mechanical or non-speaking--Revision petition allowed. 2007 MLD 1732, 2007 YLR 2220 , 2015 CLC 603 ref. Sahibzada Muzaffar Ali, Advocate/Legal Advisor for Petitioners. M/s. Rana Intezar and Arslan Yousaf, Advocates for Respondent. Date of hearing: 22.9.2021. ORDER Through instant revision petition, petitioners have assailed judgments , decrees dated 22.05.2013 , 03.04.2018, passed by learned Civil Judge and Additional District Judge, Lahore, respectively, whereby respondent’s suit for declaration along with permanent and mandatory injunction was concurrently decreed to the effect that petitioner-LDA has no concern with the suit property. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent filed suit for declaration along with permanent and mandatory injunction contending that he is owner-in-possession of suit property measuring 04-Kanal 16-Marla (fully described in the plaint) vide Document No. 8134, bahi No. 1, Jild No. 1818 dated 12.07.2008; that suit property does not come within the control of petitioner-LDA; and that petitioner-LDA illegally and unlawfully…
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