Case Details

Citation(s)
1967 SLG 5419 = 1967 SLD 5419 = 1967 PLD 91
Sindh High Court
Writ Petition No. 742 of 1963; derided on 4th January 1966.
Presented By: Qadeeruddin Ahmed, J
A. A. Fazeel for Petitioner.   S. A. Nusrat for
Respondent No. 3.  
Respondent No. 4 in person.   Ismail Munshi for
Respondent No. 5.

FAZAL NOOR--Petitioner  

VERSUS

  MUHAMMAD SHARIF ETC.- Respondents

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1962

Section: 98

Constitution of Pakistan (1962)-------   ------ Art. 98 --Other adequate remedy open-Petitioner having statutory right to file revision against order directly impugned in writ petition and revision against such order, filed by respondent, in fact pending before lower tribunal-Writ petition, in circumstance, not maintainable.   Abdur Rehman Pasha v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner P L D 1961 Lah. 12; Chittagong Engineering and Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. Certificate Officer, Dacca P L D 1965 Dacca 375; Raj Bahadur Singh v. Shatranjal A I R 1942 Oudh 226 ; A Pires v. A Rodrigues P L D 1960 Kar. 642 and Mian Jamal Shah v. Election. Tribunal P L D 1966 S C 1 ref.   JUDGMENT   This petition is directed against four orders, (1) dated the 12th of April 1962 (Annexure B to the petition), (2) dated the 18th of July 1962 (Annexure E to the petition), (3)-dated the 22nd of October 1962 (Annexure G to the petition), and (4) dated the 8th of June 1963 (Annexure H to the petition), but Mr. Fazeel, for the petitioner, took the stand that the order Annexure G was the most important of them all, and that he questioned it as the basic order.   The facts which form the background, briefly stated, are that there was a block ofbuildings, which consisted of 5 shops and a godown situated behind them. Two shops were in the possession of the petitioner and three shops were in the possession of certain persons who did not apply for their transfer, and the godown was in the possession of Muhammad Sharif, Respondent No. 3. The petitioner and respondent No. 3 submitted N. C. H. forms for the transfer of the entire building. The whole property was transferred to Respondent No. 3 by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 20th of May 1960, therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal against it. The appeal was accepted and the case was remanded to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. Round about this time the petitioner got his N.C.H. form converted into an O. P. form by the Deputy, Settlement Commissioner. A copy of that order is on the record as Annexure A to the petition, which is dated the 24th of December 1960. After receiving the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register