PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

SIKANDAR HAYAT GONDAL vs BASHIR AHMAD QURESHI S — 2023 MLD 797 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Citation
2023 MLD 797 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Court
Lahore High Court
Year
2023
Reporter
MLD
Parties
SIKANDAR HAYAT GONDAL vs BASHIR AHMAD QURESHI S
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 77; S. 8---S

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

SIKANDAR HAYAT GONDAL VS BASHIR AHMAD QURESHI S. 77(3)---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S. 8---Suit for recovery of possession of property---Civil Court, jurisdiction of---Defendants specifically raised plea that Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to try the suit, which was the core point, but to that effect, relevant issue was not framed---Such question could have been resolved while returning findings on an issue framed but unfortunately it remained unattended before two courts below---Point of jurisdiction depended upon respective pleadings of the parties---Every Court/Tribunal was bound to look into issue relating to bar of its jurisdiction at prior point of time and decide it under the law instead of escaping to answer such important aspect of the case on the mere concession of one or the other party---Forum proceeding with the matter must decide the question of its jurisdiction at the first instance, whereas defect of such type could not be removed by mere conclusion of trial as the same being point of law could even be raised at any subsequent stage---Plaintiffs had themselves claimed that defendants were inducted in subject area as tenants, whereas per maxim "once a tenant was always a tenant", did not oust them from the definition of tenants, especially when default to pay share of produce was one of the provided grounds to evict the tenant(s) by filing ejectment petition before Revenue authority--- Courts below without consulting or discussing S. 77(3) of the Punjab Tenancy act, 1887, passed the impugned verdict while merely relying upon oral evidence, whereas entries of Revenue Record showing the petitioners/defendants still to be tenants were not consulted at all---Revision was allowed and the suit was sent back to Trial Court to decide the question regarding jurisdiction.

Other judgments reported in 2023 MLD

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English