| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1970 SLG 3026 1970 SLD 3026 =1970 PLD 3051 |
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Letters Patent Appeal No. 120 of 1967, decided on 10th September 1969.
Presented By: Ghulam Safdar Shah and Muhammad Hayat Junejo, JJ
Hakim Ali Muhammad v. Qurban Hussain P L D 1957 Kar. 769 distinguished. Naimuddin for Appellant.
Respondent No. 1 in person. Fakhruddin for
Respondent No. 2. Naimuddin for
Respondent No. 3. Nemo for
Respondent No. 4. Nasir Ahmad Moro (a clerk from Mukhtiarkar's office) for
Respondent No. 5.
Letters Patent Appeal No. 120 of 1967, decided on 10th September 1969.
Presented By: Ghulam Safdar Shah and Muhammad Hayat Junejo, JJ
Hakim Ali Muhammad v. Qurban Hussain P L D 1957 Kar. 769 distinguished. Naimuddin for Appellant.
Respondent No. 1 in person. Fakhruddin for
Respondent No. 2. Naimuddin for
Respondent No. 3. Nemo for
Respondent No. 4. Nasir Ahmad Moro (a clerk from Mukhtiarkar's office) for
Respondent No. 5.
SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, KARACHI-Appellant
VERSUS
GHULAM HUSSAIN BROHI AND OTHERS-Respondents
Law: Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act (XII of 1957)
Section: 41
Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act (XII of 1957), S. 41-Expression "any question arising . . . . . whether any property is or is not evacuee property"-Mere raising of plea in suit or proceeding not enough-Party alleging property to be evacuee must show his bona fides supported by some direct or circumstantial evidence-Evacuee property register in Custodian's office showing property to be evacuee-Contention that entry erroneous, raises question whether property was or was not evacuee property and as such matter has to be referred to Custodian for decision. The clear language of section 41 of the Pakistan (Administra tion of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957 leaves no room for doubt that any question arising in a suit or proceedings whether a person or property is evacuee or not has to be referred to the Custodian for decision and in the meanwhile the suit or proceedings adjourn ed. This, however, would not mean that each and every plea taken by a party, no matter how frivolous and insubstantial, would tantamount to the raising of a question within the meaning of this section so as to bar the Court from adjudicating upon a cause which otherwise falls in its proper jurisdiction. In fact the requirement of this section appears to be that if a party to the suit or proceedings alleges that the property is evacuee property he must show his bona fides supported by some direct or circum stantial evidence. This appears to be the spirit of the section and if construed differently, it would lead to anomalous results inasmuch as a party, in order to oust the jurisdiction of the Court, may allege that the property is evacuee property although the allegation may be wholly mala fide and frivolous. In order, therefore, to see if any question, within the meaning of the section had arisen in the proceedings, the Court should refer to the pleadings of parties, their affidavits and the documentary material placed on record. If a bona fide plea is raised, support ed by some evidence on record, that the property is evacuee property a question would arise, within the meaning of section 41 of Act XII of 1957, which has to be referred to the Custodian for…