| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 3072 = 2004 SLD 3072 = 2004 PLJ 1599 |
Lahore High Court
C.R. No. 501 of 2003, heard on 7.11.2003.
Presented By: MAULVI ANWARUL haq, J.
Mr. Muhammad Munir Paracha. Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Zaheer Ahmad Qadri, Advocate for
Respondent
C.R. No. 501 of 2003, heard on 7.11.2003.
Presented By: MAULVI ANWARUL haq, J.
Mr. Muhammad Munir Paracha. Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Zaheer Ahmad Qadri, Advocate for
Respondent
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J. SARFRAZ KHAN-Petitioner
VERSUS
SULTAN MUHAMMAD-Respondent
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 12(2)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) S. 12(2)Revision-Suit for possession-Preliminary decree passed which attained finality-After completing that round with the ultimate findings recorded by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner started the second round in which there was no slightest mention of previous litigation of the same cause-Patwari stated that no suit or order was there-Exercise of suo moto jurisdiction-Defamatory metrial such like the report of Patwari which was also published petitioner demanded damages-Damages allowed-Petition disposed of. [Pp. 1600, 1601. 1602 & 1603] A. B, C & D . Date of hearing: 7.11.2003. judgment This judgment shall decide C.R. N. 501/03, C.R. No. 502/03, C.R. No. 251/03 and C.R. No. 252/03, as common questions are involved in all these cases and proceed against a common judgment. 2. On 3.9.1985, Sultan Muhammad, respondent filed a suit for separate possession of land measuring 8 Marias by partition. A preliminary decree was passed on 4.6.1991. Learned Addl. District Judge, Attock dismissed the first appeal filed by the present petitioners on 18.7.1992. C.R. No. 395/92 was filed in this Court which was dismissed on 14.5.1996. CPLA No. 386/96 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan on 13.1.1997.1 deem it proper to mention here that it was duly noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the petitioner had been contending that in the previous jamabandi area of khsara Nos. 343 and 344 was larger and his share should have been computed accordingly and that this plea was rejected by this Court holding that the shares calculated on the basis of latest record…