Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SARDAR MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: UMAR DIN ALIAS MUHAMMAD DINHonorable Justice Ch. Fazal Karim
1994 M L D 2244
[Lahore]
Before Ch. Fazal Karim, J
SARDAR MUHAMMAD---Petitioner
Versus
UMAR DIN alias MUHAMMAD DIN---Respondent
Civil Revisions Nos.890 to 892 of 1992, decided on 1st December, 1992.
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O.VII, R.11---Rejection of plaint---Suit for possession of land in question on basis of title was decreed by Ti ial Court, but Appellate Court rejected plaint by taking judicial notice of a notification according to which land in question had been acquired by Government and that plaintiff had no locus standi to retain that land or claim ownership thereof after issuance of said notification---Appellate Court by taking alleged Notification as evidence at appeal stage had taken plaintiff by surprise as he had no opportunity of objecting to acceptance of said notification as evidence or to show that said notification did not affect his ownership---Case of defendant was not that plaintiff had ceased to be owner of suit land and notification was not produced at any stage of suit---Order of Appellate Court below rejecting plaint filed by plaintiff, was set aside and case remanded to be decided afresh in accordance with law.
Ch. Muhammad Anwar Bhindar for Petitioner.
Mrs. Shaista Kaisar for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 1st December, 1992.
JUDGMENT
This will dispose of C.Rs. Nos.890, 891 and 892 of 1992.
2. The petitioners' suit was for the possession of the land in question on the basis of tide. The defendants, respondents herein, contested the suits. The suits were decreed by the judgment of the learned Civil Judge dated 21-5-1989. On the defendants' appeal, however, the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, took what he described as the judicial notice of a notification, issued by the Government of the Punjab, under the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973 No.L J-2/8073/M/DRA, dated 25th March, 1976 and observed that the land in question had been acquired by the Government and held that the plaintiffs, petitioners herein, had "no locus standi to retain the aforesaid land or to claim ownership thereof after issuance of notification by the Government of Punjab since after the pronouncement of the notification, Government of Punjab is the owner of the disputed land??" He, therefore, rejected the plaint of the petitioners' suit under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in accepting the notification as evidence at the appeal stage, the petitioners were taken by surprise that they had no opportunity of objecting to the acceptance of the notification as evidence or to show, that notification did not affect the petitioners' ownership. This contention must, in my view, succeed. It was not the defendants' case in their written statements that the petitioners had ceased to be the owners of the land in suit nor was the notification produced at any stage of the suit. The petitioners, therefore, were, entitled to a hearing which included the right to object to the admissibility of the notification at that stage and in case .the notification was accepted as evidence to lead such evidence in rebuttal as they thought necessary.
4. For these reasons, the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, dated 18-4-1992 is set aside and the appeals are sent back to him for decision in accordance with law. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
H.B.T./S-507/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.