Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NOOR ELLAHI VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD ELLAHI AND Another
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): M. S. H. Qureshi, Abdul Qadir Sheikh Title: NOOR ELLAHI vs MUHAMMAD ELLAHI AND Another Case No.: Civil Petition No. 258-R of 1982 R. S. A. No. 219 of 1982 Date of Judgment:1983-04-11 Reported As: 1983 SCMR 532 Result: Petition dismissed
Judgment ORDER M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-This petition arises from a suit filed by the petitioner for, a declaration that he being in possession of shop No. C/330, Moti Bazar, Rawalpindi, was entitled to its transfer and that the transfer made in favour of respondent No. 1 was void, and for an injunction restraining the said respondent from demanding any rent from him or taking any steps for his ejectment. 2, The shop had been transferred in the very first round of the Settle--ment operations in favour of the respondent but the transfer. Was challenged by the petitioner's brothers who went up to the Supreme Court but failed throughout. The petition of Abdul Hakim, brother of the petitioner, for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court was dismissed on 8-10-1964 with adverse remarks. However, the petitioner, later, applied under Scheme No. VIII but his application was rejected on 24-10-1968 and his appeal therefrom failed on 14-11-1969. Nevertheless, he applied once again under Scheme No. 1X and as the same too was refused for the obvious reason that the property was not available, he brought the suit as aforesaid. The suit was dismissed for the reason, Inter alia, of want of jurisdiction. The petitioner's appeal having failed, he came to the High Court in revision which, too, was dismissad on 5-10-1982 by the impugned order. 3. It is obvious that what the petitioner is seeking is the cancellation of the transfer made in favour of the respondent which he cannot do by civil action. There has already been a prolonged and wasteful litigation conducted by the petitioner and his brothers for the property and the present suit is obviously not only frivolous but also vexatious. There is no case for grant of leave to appeal. The petition is dismissed.