| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 3706 = 2026 SLD 3706 = 2026 PLD 134 |
Federal Constitution Court of Pakistan
C.P.L.A. No. 23 of 2025, decided on 4th March, 2026. (Against the judgment dated 16.12.2024, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Writ Petition No. 3160 of 2024).
Presented By: Amin-ud-Din Khan, CJ and Ali Baqar Najafi, J
Saleem-ur-Rehman v. Faqir Hussain and others 2004 SCMR 667 and Mirza Abdul Razzaq v. Barkat Ali and others 1985 SCMR 1235 rel. Hassan Raza Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Sadaqat Ali Jahangir, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents (on behalf of Yasin Azad, Advocate Supreme Court).
C.P.L.A. No. 23 of 2025, decided on 4th March, 2026. (Against the judgment dated 16.12.2024, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Writ Petition No. 3160 of 2024).
Presented By: Amin-ud-Din Khan, CJ and Ali Baqar Najafi, J
Saleem-ur-Rehman v. Faqir Hussain and others 2004 SCMR 667 and Mirza Abdul Razzaq v. Barkat Ali and others 1985 SCMR 1235 rel. Hassan Raza Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Sadaqat Ali Jahangir, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents (on behalf of Yasin Azad, Advocate Supreme Court).
Malik SAIF-UR-REHMAN ---Petitioner
VERSUS
ZAHOOR AHMAD MALIK and another ---Respondents
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 145
Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
Section: 9, 42, 54
Law: Constitution of Pakistan
Section: 175F(1)(c)
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 145---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.9, 42 & 54---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.175F(1)(c)---Possession of immovable property---Joint ownership---Order to avoid breach of peace---Both the parties were co-owners of disputed plot and civil suit pertaining to recovery of possession was pending in Civil Court of competent jurisdiction---There was also an order passed under Section 145 Cr.P.C. to protect peace and possession---Held: Both the parties were in joint ownership and had joint possession---No one was in exclusive possession of the plot which in fact was mandatory for handing over the possession of a semi-constructed plaza to petitioner---Civil suit for possession under Section 9 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 was filed by petitioner and suit for declaration and rendition of accounts and permanent injunction was also filed by respondent and as such both parties had landed their respective claim in Civil Court---Nature of order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was temporary and short lived only during existence of imminent danger to the breach of peace---Rights and liabilities over such property were not finally determined---Co-owner could not be forcibly dispossessed from his own property---How much constructions were carried out and which side was to be sold for what price or retained by petitioner were dependent upon evidence on the basis of which rights and liabilities would be finally determined by Civil Court---Federal Constitutional Court directed that possession of disputed construction would be regulated by Civil Court where the suits were pending and declined to interfere in the matter---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Date of hearing: 20th February, 2026. …