| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2005 SLG 1159 2005 SLD 1159 2005 CLC 336 |
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No. 1171 of 2004, decision dated: 13-12-2004.
DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Revision No. 1171 of 2004, decision dated: 13-12-2004.
DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
PROJECT DIRECTOR, K.D.A. KOHAT
VS
Mst. FARKHANDA JABEEN
Law:
Section:
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---------S. 35-A---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42-Suit for declaration---Compensatory costs---Plot in question was allotted to plaintiff in open auction---Plaintiff deposited first instalment along with taxes, but could not deposit remaining instalments within stipulated period---Request of plaintiff for extension of time to deposit arrears was allowed by defendant himself who was. Project Director and plaintiff deposited arrears along with late fee and surcharge---Despite such compliance of order of defendant, plot in question was cancelled from name of plaintiff---Plaintiff having not succeeded in persuading defendant to recall cancellation order, due to negative and perverse attitude of defendant, had to file declaratory suit in Civil Court---Again good sense could not prevail upon defendant as he opted for collision course and contested suit which ended in decree against him---Making it a matter of prestige or for ulterior consideration, defendant did not abandon unholy chase and filed appeal against of trial Court without getting legal opinion from Competent Authority and said appeal was also dismissed---Displaying again same unreasonable conduct and behaviour riddled by mala fide and unsavoury conduct, defendant at the cost of Government Exchequer filed revision petition without making a little stop/pause to think rationally about fruitless litigation with a citizen---Revision petition was dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000 with direction that said cost and all expenses incurred on entire litigation should be recovered from the salary of defendant. Sabahuddin Khattak for Petitioner. ORDER Petitioner is a Project Director, Kohat Development Authority, Kohat who was defendant in the suit before the trial Court. 2. Respondent No.1 Mst. Farkhanda Jabeen was allotted Plot No.60 in Sector 2-B, K.D.A. Scheme Kohat, vide order, No.1094 dated 27-9-1995 in open auction. She deposited the first instalment along with taxes but could not deposit the remaining two instalments within the stipulated period, thus, applied for extension of time to deposit the arrears. Such request was allowed by the petitioner himself and on 14-1-1996,…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492