Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 1527 2026 SLD 1527 = 2026 PLJ 30
Sindh High Court
C.P. No. S-1395 of 2025, decided on 9.12.2025.
Presented By: Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, J.
Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Baloch, Advocate for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 9.12.2025.

WAHID BUX MALLAH--Petitioner

VERSUS

PROVINCE OF SINDH and others--Respondents

Law: Criminal Procedure Code, 1898

Section: O.XXI & Rr. 35,36

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

PLJ 2026 Karachi 30 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- ----O.XXI & Rr. 35 & 36--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Application for execution--Allowed--Civil revision--Dismissed--Possession of land--Demarcation report--Writ of possession--Significantly, petitioner did not claim any title, ownership, or possession over Survey No. 12/1--Thus, impugned order did not curtail, diminish, or affect any right of petitioner--Executing Court, while issuing writ of possession, acted strictly in accordance with decree and demarcation report--Rather, it confined itself to determining identity and possession of land in question, which is well within its jurisdiction--It is well settled that in execution proceedings, executing Court may enforce decree in terms of demarcated land, and unless decree is shown to have been exceeded, interference was not warranted--No illegality, irregularity, jurisdictional defect, or perversity in impugned orders has been demonstrated--Petition dismissed.   [P. 32] A, B & C Order 1)       Urgency granted. 2)       Deferred. 3)       Granted subject to all just exceptions. 4 & 5)          Through this Constitutional Petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-I, Sujawal in Execution Application No. 01/2019 in F.C. Suit No. 140/2014, whereby the execution application was allowed. The said order was assailed through Civil Revision Application No. 06/2025, which too was dismissed vide order dated 07.11.2025, leading to the filing of the present petition. 2.       Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both Courts below failed to appreciate the facts of the case and passed the impugned orders in a hasty manner. He submits that the executing Court has gone beyond the decree and granted relief which the trial Court did not grant. He argues that the executing Court has disturbed the settled proposition that execution must…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register