| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLD 3192 |
Islamabad High Court
R.F.A. No. 316 of 2022
Presented By: ARBAB MUHAMMAD TAHIR
Date of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Appellant by : Malik Nasir Abbas Awan, Advocates.
Respondent by : Syed Nazar Hussain Shah, AAG. Tanveer Haider, Estate Director.
R.F.A. No. 316 of 2022
Presented By: ARBAB MUHAMMAD TAHIR
Date of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Appellant by : Malik Nasir Abbas Awan, Advocates.
Respondent by : Syed Nazar Hussain Shah, AAG. Tanveer Haider, Estate Director.
Muhammad Nasim
VERSUS
Estate Office, etc.
Law:
Section:
JUDGMENT SHEET ARBAB MUHAMMAD TAHIR, J. Through the instant appeal, appellant impugns judgment and decree dated 30.5.2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Islamabad-West, whereby his suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction was dismissed. The case set-up by the appellant in the subject suit was to the effect that while serving as Ward Boy BS-14 in the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences Islamabad/respondent No.3, allotted Quarter No. 58/5, Cat-V, Sector I-9/4, Islamabad by the respondent No.1-Estate Office vide letter dated 02.1.2013, possession of the same had been with him since January, 20013 and he while apprehending cancellation of said allotment by the respondent No.1, as per past practice, he was constrained to file the suit. The respondents 1&2 in their written statement controverted the stance of the appellant by contending that suit accommodation was sublet by the appellant; it was got vacated from unauthorized occupant as there were directions by the Hon’ble Apex Court in HRC Case No. 20746/2018 to get vacate the official accommodations from unauthorized occupants; that after taking back the possession, suit accommodation was allotted to senior most Federal Government Servant as per General Waiting List pursuant to judgment dated 19.10.2011 passed in CP No. 1498/2011 and also handed over its possession to the allottee but the appellant again took over its possession forcibly and then filed the suit to give legal cover to his illegal act. The learned Trial Court, out of the pleadings of the parties, framed necessary issues and then recorded evidence of the parties. The appellant himself appeared as PW-1, tendered affidavit Ex.P1 while copies of service card and allotment letter were also tendered in documentary evidence as Ex.P2 and P3 respectively. From the side of respondents 1&2, Assistant Director, Estate Office appeared as DW-1. In documentary evidence, spot inquiry report Ex.D-1, details of allotee Ex.D-2, copy of cancellation letter Ex.D3 and copy of allotment letter of Abdul Majeed Ex.D-4 were tendered. The learned Trial Court, after hearing the parties,…