| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 1402 2026 SLD 1402 = 2026 SCP 64 = 2026 SCMR 941 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
CPLA No.281-P of 2012 Against judgment dated 12.03.2012 of the Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qaza), Swat, passed in Civil Revision No.48 of 2010.
Presented By: Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail Justice Shahid Waheed Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui
Mr. Asad Jan, ASC via video link from Peshawar
CPLA No.281-P of 2012 Against judgment dated 12.03.2012 of the Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qaza), Swat, passed in Civil Revision No.48 of 2010.
Presented By: Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail Justice Shahid Waheed Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui
Mr. Asad Jan, ASC via video link from Peshawar
Shahbaz Khan ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Dowlat Khan and others. ...Respondent(s)
Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Section: 115,XX ,54
Summary In this petition against a Peshawar High Court judgment upholding lower courts' preliminary decree for partition of a disputed house among three brothers, the Supreme Court identified procedural flaws and legal errors. The court noted the failure to follow Order XX Rule 18 CPC by not declaring shares in the preliminary decree, the impermissibility of partial partition suits, and disregard for prior family settlement claims and High Court observations from 2005. Consequently, the petition was converted to an appeal, lower decrees set aside, and the case remanded for fresh trial. Core Points Dispute over partition of one disputed house from father's estate of four houses, previously subject to family settlement allocating one house each to three brothers. First litigation (2005) restrained interference pending partition proceedings, leaving issues like property descriptions, prior partitions, and land status unresolved. Second suit by respondent No.1 sought partition only of disputed house; trial court issued preliminary decree without specifying shares or verifying family settlement/other properties. Lower courts and High Court erred by allowing partial partition, ignoring precedents that require partitioning entire joint estate to ensure equity. Key procedural lapse: Preliminary decree violated Order XX Rule 18 CPC by not declaring parties' rights/shares or directing further inquiry. Supreme Court converted petition to appeal, set aside judgments/decrees, and remanded for fresh decision considering all issues. Relevant Laws and Sections Law/Provision Description Application in Case Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 Revision jurisdiction of High Court against jurisdictional errors or material irregularities in lower court decisions. Petitioner invoked against preliminary decree; High Court dismissed, but Supreme Court found material irregularities warranting intervention. Order XX Rule 18, CPC Procedure for decrees in partition suits: Preliminary decree declares shares and directs further inquiry if needed; final decree follows physical division. Trial court's preliminary decree defective for omitting share…