Case Details

Citation(s)
1990 SLD 525 = 1990 MLD 823
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No.1802 of 1986, decided on 17th June, 1987.
Presented By: Before Muhammad Adam Mian, J
Muhammad Tufail Dhami for the Petitioner.

Mian ABDUL WAHEED--Petitioner

VERSUS

Khawaja MUHAMMAD SAEED and another--Respondents

Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 42 , 54

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-- ---Ss.42 & 54---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---Plaintiffs in a suit filed to prohibit obstruction to user of public passage, clearly claimed in plaint enforcement of their private and personal right in respect of passage in dispute, but trial Court, without framing issue in respect of existence of private and personal right of plaintiffs as asserted by them in plaint, dismissed their suit holding that disputed strip of land was not, public passage---Case of plaintiffs having been prejudiced due to non-framing of issue regarding claim of plaintiffs as no proper adjudication could be had without framing issue in that respect, Appellate Court below, held, rightly remanded case to decide afresh after framing issue which was not framed by Trial Court---Contention, that plaintiffs had not mentioned in plaint that they had enjoyed passage in dispute in exercise of their personal right for a period of 20 years maturing into easement, could not be given way to as same could be substantiated by adducing evidence and such technicality could not be regarded fatal to cause of plaintiffs. Abdullah and others v. Muhammad Amin PLD 1968 Lah. 1235 and Muhammad Saeed v. Muhammad Umar Khan and another PLD 1987 Lah. 63 ref. Muhammad Tufail Dhami for the Petitioner. Date of hearing: 17th June, 1987. ORDER This civil revision arises out of a suit instituted by the respondents against the petitioner on 6-6-1978 in the civil Court at Lahore seeking a declaration to the effect that a duly sanctioned 30 feet wide street connecting Shish Mahal Road with Ihata Sardar Shah and other localities onwards and passing along-side the property of the respondents continued to exist as such and the petitioner had no claim, right, title or dominion over the land comprising the street and he was not entitled to transact about the street land or to block, obstruct, encroach upon or interfere with the street and the passage in any manner whatsoever, for all times to come alongwith a permanent injunction for restraining the petitioner from committing any act constituting a public nuisance, especially in violation of the sanctioned Scheme and declared…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register