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

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1264 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mian TARIQ AZIZ vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 1264 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Citation
2024 YLR 1264 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Court
Lahore High Court
Year
2024
Reporter
YLR
Parties
Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1264 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mian TARIQ AZIZ vs State Ss
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 249; S. 12; S. 151; Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

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

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 1264 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Mian TARIQ AZIZ VS State Ss. 249 & 561-a---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 467, 468 & 471---Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for valuable security, forged document, using as genuine a forged document---Proceedings in FIR stayed till outcome of civil cases---Petitioner applied for a stay of proceedings under S. 249, Cr.P.C., on the ground that four civil suits concerning the disputed property were pending---Said application was dismissed---Decision of the trial Court was upheld in revision by the Revisional Court--- Validity--- Respondent No.2 claimed that Sale Deed in question was bogus--- Petitioner had produced documents which prima facie showed that on 03.12.1995 father of respondent No. 2 executed an agreement with the petitioner in respect of the land measuring 03 kanals 15 marlas and agreed to sell it to him for Rs.616,000/---Said seller received Rs.100,000/- as earnest money, of which Rs.50,000/- was in cash and the remainder in two cheques of Rs.25,000/- each---On the same day, seller delivered the possession of the land to the petitioner---Petitioner had submitted a copy of the building plan of a Mill sanctioned by the competent authority on 28.03.1996 which included the disputed land---Seller/father of respondent No. 2 lived for 12 long years after the registration of Sale Deed, but neither he challenged it nor instituted any proceedings to recover possession of the land in question---Respondent No.2 lodged an FIR nine years after the death of her father---Respondent No.2 maintained that she came to know about the registration of Sale Deed on 12.04.2017 through the Halqa Patwari when the petitioner presented it to him for mutation---However, the record contradicted her and showed that she filed a complaint about the said sale deed with Police Station in the year 2012---Police conducted an extensive inquiry and it was disposed of as a result of its findings---Moreover deceased seller had mortgaged the land to some other persons and failed to redeem that mortgage within 60 years---Resultantly, said mortgagees filed a suit seeking a declaration that title of mortgagor had been extinguished and that they had become its owners---Said suit was decreed ex parte---Respondent No.2 applied under S. 12(2), C.P.C., to have it set aside, but the civil Court dismissed the application---Respondent No. 2 assailed that order in revision, but it was also dismissed---Prior to that the petitioner had filed a suit against Respondent No.2 seeking a declaration regarding his title and permanent injunction---On 02.05.2017, the latter instituted a lawsuit against the petitioner for cancellation of Sale Deed---Earlier, she got two Mutations sanctioned regarding the inheritance of her father in respect of Khasra Nos. 510 and 511---Then, on 08.12.2015, respondent No. 2 filed a suit for possession (along with permanent injunction) against the petitioner regarding land measuring 07 kanals 03 marlas comprised in those Khasras which was decreed ex parte on 26.04.2016---Petitioner had filed an application under O. XXI, R. 99 & 103 read with S. 151, C.P.C. objecting to the execution of that decree---all such proceedings were currently pending---Dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2 involved intricate questions of law and facts---Prima facie, the eligibility of respondent No.2 to lodge the FIR was also contingent on the outcome of the civil litigation---authenticity of Sale Deed could not be determined without a proper trial by the Civil Court where lawsuits of both sides were pending, thus it was just and appropriate that the proceedings in FIR be stayed till the final decision of the civil cases---Petition was accepted and the impugned orders were set aside, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR

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