Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: Ghulam Hussain VS Learned Addl. District Judge (IHC)
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Parties: Ghulam Hussain vs Learned Addl. District Judge (East), Islamabad etc.
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court, officially reported as Ghulam Hussain VS Learned Addl. District Judge (IHC). In this matter between Ghulam Hussain and Learned Addl. District Judge (East), Islamabad etc., the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Islamabad High Court (Honourable Mr. Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas) AUTHOR JUDGE: Honourable Mr. Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas DECISION DATE: 11-MAR-2025 CASE NO: Writ Petition-2375-2024 CITATION: 2025 IHC 206692 PARTIES: Ghulam Hussain VS Learned Addl. District Judge (East), Islamabad etc. LAW / SECTION: - SUBJECT: Miscelleneous, Other REMARKS: Against the impugned order dated 17.06.2022 before Learned Civil Judge (East) Islamabad and the impugned judgement dated 05.10.2022 passed by Learned Addl. District Judge Islamabad (East) ============================================================ ORDER SHEET. IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.
Writ Petition No.2375 of 2024
Ghulam Hussain
Versus
The Learned Additional District Judge (East), Islamabad, etc
S. No. of order/ proceedings Date of order/ Proceedings Order with signature of Judge and that of parties or counsel where necessary.
11.03.2025 Mr. Rais Mumtaz Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.06.2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class-East, Islamabad and the judgment dated 05.10.2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad (East), whereby application under order XXXIX, Rule 1 & 2, CPC filed by the petitioner was dismissed concurrently. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against respondents No.3 to 6/defendants in respect of plot measuring 1 Kanal 13 Marla, Khewat No.940, Khasra No.3346, situated in Revenue Estate of Humak, Tehsil & District Islamabad (“Suit Property”). Along with the suit petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under order XXXIX, Rule 1 & 2, CPC. Respondents No.3 to 6/defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement to the suit as well as reply to the
2 Writ Petition No.2375 of 2024
application. The learned Civil Judge after hearing the arguments on the application, dismissed the same vide order dated 17.06.2022. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of the said order filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 05.10.2022, hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order and the judgment are against the law and facts of the case; that the impugned order and the judgment are based upon misreading and non- reading of material available on record; that the learned Civil Judge while passing the impugned order wrongly relied upon the report of revenue officials. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner is tenant of the original owner/respondent No.5 in the Suit Property. Admittedly the Suit Property falls in Khasra No.3346, wherein respondents No.3 to 5 are co- sharer. The demarcation report dated 22.04.2019 prepared by the revenue officials reflects that the Suit Property is joint and there is also no evidence that the same has been partitioned in accordance with law. It is
3 Writ Petition No.2375 of 2024
centuries old settled law that every co-sharer in joint property is considered to be in possession of each and every inch of the joint property until the same is partitioned in accordance with law, therefore, the petitioner has no prima facie case. 6. Moreover, a co-sharer cannot seek injunction against the other co-sharer for protection of his rights without seeking partition. If a co-sharer is dispossessed from the joint property in his/her possession by any other co-sharer, the remedies lie for regaining his/her possession either in a suit u/s 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 or by way of a suit for partition. Reliance is placed upon Fazal Karim and 2 others vs. Mehboob Khan (Deceased) through his Legal Heirs, (2024 CLC 699 Lahore). 7. In view of the above discussion, I hold that both the Courts below have passed the impugned order and the judgment in accordance with law. No illegality, misreading and non-reading of the available record has been found. Consequently, the instant writ petition is dismissed in limine due to lack of merit.
(INAAM AMEEN MINHAS) JUDGE R.Anjam