What grounds could be taken for staying the execution of an immovable property by a tenant-purchaser when the rent court has passed an eviction order against him and the same confirmed by the superior courts but a civil suit for specific performance, permanent injunction and cancellation of sub lease in the name of the opponent is also concurrently subjudiced in the civil court in the same matter, viz dispute over title, before the eviction order was passed?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
-
Welcome to our legal community! Click here or the create new topic button to ask a question and receive answers and comments from our friendly and helpful legal community.
Articles that answer frequent legal questions are in our Law Guide. Important legal news is reported in The Law JournalYou can find a lawyer near you in the Lawyer Directory. If you know that you need to hire an attorney, you can submit a case review from a lawyer.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Execution of Immovable Property
- Thread Starter mazbut
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Staying Execution
Thanks
Here is a copy of the Review Petition which will give you an idea of the problem...
Pending this Review the respondent has filed Execution at the same Civil Court where a suit filed by me against him and others
for Specific performance, Cancellation of sub lease in name of Respondent, and Permanent Injunction is concurrently pending
Now, I have to go for stay of execution to save possession of the property. What should I do??
The case relates to Pakistan Civil law,,,which is more or less like the Indian Law . I would be forwarding you some hints on the Civil Procedure Code in use here and the sections which govern Review, Appeals and Execution of Immovables
Without Prejudice:
please see attachment
Your question is too convoluted. Also please provide your jurisdiction and some factual background.
Thanks
Here is a copy of the Review Petition which will give you an idea of the problem...
Pending this Review the respondent has filed Execution at the same Civil Court where a suit filed by me against him and others
for Specific performance, Cancellation of sub lease in name of Respondent, and Permanent Injunction is concurrently pending
Now, I have to go for stay of execution to save possession of the property. What should I do??
The case relates to Pakistan Civil law,,,which is more or less like the Indian Law . I would be forwarding you some hints on the Civil Procedure Code in use here and the sections which govern Review, Appeals and Execution of Immovables
Without Prejudice:
please see attachment
If you really want, try spelling out the story at a 5th grade level. There was nothing attached to your previous message and the facts currently are incomprehensible. I suspect, however, that this will be governed by your local law or rules of civil procedure and advice from North America will be of little assistance.
I attached the case file but it didn't come through due to longevity of size.
I have been consulting foreign judgments from North America , UK, Phillipine , India etc and they are helpful for justice being universally the same ,,,though laws may be different.
FYI Here are the points I have raised in my Review Petition with the Supreme Court of Pakistan. What do you say about them??
1. Is an order by the High Court based on an
inapplicable ruling (case law) valid?
2. What is the legality of the order of a High
court Judge who had been opponent lawyer of the
Appellant for 12 years (1991 to 2000)in a bank
recovery case from its day of institution to
execution wherein the real brother of the Appellant
was the Auction purchaser who was also friends with
the said lawyer??
3. What are the legal consequences on the case
(civil) if the advocate of the plaintiff files a
false affidavit in his own defense to justify the
lame excuse for his non-appearance before the
Judge when the case is called? The supreme court
itself detecting this at the time of Appeal. Is the
Appellant responsible for the illegal act of his
counsel??
I have been consulting foreign judgments from North America , UK, Phillipine , India etc and they are helpful for justice being universally the same ,,,though laws may be different.
FYI Here are the points I have raised in my Review Petition with the Supreme Court of Pakistan. What do you say about them??
1. Is an order by the High Court based on an
inapplicable ruling (case law) valid?
2. What is the legality of the order of a High
court Judge who had been opponent lawyer of the
Appellant for 12 years (1991 to 2000)in a bank
recovery case from its day of institution to
execution wherein the real brother of the Appellant
was the Auction purchaser who was also friends with
the said lawyer??
3. What are the legal consequences on the case
(civil) if the advocate of the plaintiff files a
false affidavit in his own defense to justify the
lame excuse for his non-appearance before the
Judge when the case is called? The supreme court
itself detecting this at the time of Appeal. Is the
Appellant responsible for the illegal act of his
counsel??
Civi Procedure Code 1908
Pakistan
(extracts of relevant laws)
QUESTIONS TO BE DETERMINED BY COURT EXECUTING
DECREE
Section 47.-(l) All questions arising between the parties
to the suit in which the decree was passed, or
their representatives, and relating to the
execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree,
shall be determined by the Court executing the
decree and not by a separate suit.
(2) The Court may, subject to any objection as to
limitation or jurisdiction, treat a proceeding
under this section as a suit or a suit as a
proceeding and may, if necessary, order payment of
any additional court-fees.
(3) Where a question arises as to whether any
person is or is representative of a party, such
question shall, for the purpose of this section, be
determined by the Court.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, a
plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a
defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed,
are parties to the suit.
LIMIT OF TIME FOR EXECUTION
148....(1) Where an application to execute a decree
not being a decree granting an injunction has been
made, no order for the execution of the same decree shall be made upon any fresh application presented after the expiration of [six] years from.
(a) the date of the decree sought to be executed, or
(b) where the decree or any subsequent order
directs any payment of money or the delivery of any property to be made at a certain date or at
recurring periods, the date of the default in
making the payment or delivery in respect of which the applicant seeks to execute the decree.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed-
(a) to preclude the Court from ordering the
execution of a decree upon an application presented
after the expiration of the said term of '[six] years, where the judgment-debtor has, by fraud or
force, prevented the execution of the decree at some time within [six] years immediately before the date of the application;
or
(b) to limit or otherwise affect the operation of
article 2[83 of the First Schedule to the
Limitation Act, 1908].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ORDER XXI
EXECUTION OF DECREES AND ORDERS
26. (1) The Court to which a decree has been sent
for execution shall, upon sufficient cause being
shown, stay the execution of such decree for a
reasonable time, to enable the judgment-debtor to
apply to the Court by which the decree was passed,
or to any Court having appellate jurisdiction in
respect of the decree or, the execution thereof,
for an order to stay execution, or for any other
order relating to the decree or execution which
might have been made by such Court of first
instance or appellate Court if execution had been
issued thereby, or if application for execution had
been made thereto.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
28. Any order of the Court by which the decree was
passed, or of such Court of appeal as aforesaid, in
relation to the execution of such decree, shall be
binding upon the Court to which the decree was sent
for execution.
29. Where a suit is pending in any Court against
the holder of a decree of such Court, on the part
of the person against whom the decree was passed,
the Court may, on such terms as to security or
otherwise, as it thinks fit, stay execution of the
decree until the pending suit has been decided.
,<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Pakistan
(extracts of relevant laws)
QUESTIONS TO BE DETERMINED BY COURT EXECUTING
DECREE
Section 47.-(l) All questions arising between the parties
to the suit in which the decree was passed, or
their representatives, and relating to the
execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree,
shall be determined by the Court executing the
decree and not by a separate suit.
(2) The Court may, subject to any objection as to
limitation or jurisdiction, treat a proceeding
under this section as a suit or a suit as a
proceeding and may, if necessary, order payment of
any additional court-fees.
(3) Where a question arises as to whether any
person is or is representative of a party, such
question shall, for the purpose of this section, be
determined by the Court.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, a
plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a
defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed,
are parties to the suit.
LIMIT OF TIME FOR EXECUTION
148....(1) Where an application to execute a decree
not being a decree granting an injunction has been
made, no order for the execution of the same decree shall be made upon any fresh application presented after the expiration of [six] years from.
(a) the date of the decree sought to be executed, or
(b) where the decree or any subsequent order
directs any payment of money or the delivery of any property to be made at a certain date or at
recurring periods, the date of the default in
making the payment or delivery in respect of which the applicant seeks to execute the decree.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed-
(a) to preclude the Court from ordering the
execution of a decree upon an application presented
after the expiration of the said term of '[six] years, where the judgment-debtor has, by fraud or
force, prevented the execution of the decree at some time within [six] years immediately before the date of the application;
or
(b) to limit or otherwise affect the operation of
article 2[83 of the First Schedule to the
Limitation Act, 1908].
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ORDER XXI
EXECUTION OF DECREES AND ORDERS
26. (1) The Court to which a decree has been sent
for execution shall, upon sufficient cause being
shown, stay the execution of such decree for a
reasonable time, to enable the judgment-debtor to
apply to the Court by which the decree was passed,
or to any Court having appellate jurisdiction in
respect of the decree or, the execution thereof,
for an order to stay execution, or for any other
order relating to the decree or execution which
might have been made by such Court of first
instance or appellate Court if execution had been
issued thereby, or if application for execution had
been made thereto.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
28. Any order of the Court by which the decree was
passed, or of such Court of appeal as aforesaid, in
relation to the execution of such decree, shall be
binding upon the Court to which the decree was sent
for execution.
29. Where a suit is pending in any Court against
the holder of a decree of such Court, on the part
of the person against whom the decree was passed,
the Court may, on such terms as to security or
otherwise, as it thinks fit, stay execution of the
decree until the pending suit has been decided.
,<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Facts of the case are
CIVIL REVIEW PETITION UNDER ORDER XXVI OF SUPREME COURT RULES, 1980,
AGAINST
> THE JUDGMENT DATED 19-12-2008, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF
> PAKISTAN IN CIVIL PETITION NO: CP-491K/08 (CIVIL PETITION FOR LEAVE TO
> APPEAL NO: CP-491K/08)
>
>
>
> Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment dated 19-12-2008
in Civil
> Appeal No.CP491-K/08 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
Petitioner
begs
to
> file this Review Petition inter alia on the following facts and grounds:
>
>
>
> Certified copy of the impugned order is filed herewith.
>
>
>
> FACTS OF THE CASE
>
>
>
> 1. That according to the Respondent No.1, he purchased the demised
> shop No.3 alleging it to be renumbered as such from the previous owner/
> landlady by virtue of sub-lease dated 10-05-2007 and the Petitioner is the
> tenant of originally demised shop No.2 at a monthly rent of Rs.812/= per
> month and he was inducted in the said demised shop by the previous
landlady.
> The Respondent No.1 submitted that after the purchase of the demised shop
> which is in possession of the appellant shop originally numbered as shop
> No.2 , he visited the
demised shop with one Malik Muhammad Afzal and
> informed the
Petitioner's
staff that he has
purchased the said demised
shop
> renumbered as shop No.3 and requested him to pay the future monthly rent
to
> the Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1 further submitted that he also
> informed the appellant through notice dated 30-05-2007 delivered through
TCS
> but it was returned undelivered due to close of the demised shop, another
> notice dated 05-06-2007 was sent to the Petitioner through TCS which was
> received by him. The Respondent No.1 claimed that he required the demised
> shop in good faith for his own personal bonafide use. The Respondent No.1
> alleged that the Petitioner is defaulter in payment of rent from May, 2007
> onwards and further alleged that the appellant committed default in
payment
> of Water & Conservancy Charges since his occupation
of the demised
shop. On
> the basis of such claims and
allegations the Respondent
No.1 prayed
for
the
> ejectment of the Petitioner.
>
>
>
> 2. That the bare intimation notice of change of ownership was sent
by
> the Respondent through bailiff. The bailiff reported on oath that the
notice
> has been received by the Petitioner's servant. Notice was also sent
through
> TCS. The Petitioner appeared in the Court on first hearing in court on
> 13-11-2007 and filed application for grant of time to engage lawyer and
> filing of written statement. The application was allowed and case
adjourned
> to 01-12-2007. On the next date 01-12-2007 P.O being busy in official
> meeting Petitioner son was allowed time and case was fixed for filing
of
> written statement to 11-12-2007 but none of the parties appeared and the
> matter was
adjourned to 12-01-2008, noted in the case dairy as
the
'last
> chance'. This Honb'le
court may be pleased
to
note that hardly 28
days had
> passed in the proceedings of statutory limit allowed to file written
> statement after which allowed time the Petitioner succeeded in finding
and
> engaging his said counsel who, on 12-01-2008 appeared for the Petitioner
> before the court and filed Vakalatnama and an application u/s 148 CPC r/w
> Section 151 CPC in the office but left the court taking along with
> Petitioner's son who had come to attend the hearing and submit the
written
> statement, without waiting himself or letting Petitioner's son wait
for the
> call. Consequently, to the utter shock, dismay and surprise of
> Petitioner and his son at counsel's uncalled for, unexpected and
peculiar
> conduct, the side of the Petitioner for filing of
written statement was
> closed and he was
proceeded against ex-parte and the Respondent No.1
was
> directed to
file
affidavit-in-exparte proof. On the next date i.e.
> 26-01-2008 the Petitioner's counsel filed application for setting
aside the
> order dated 12-01-2008 and submitted the written statement in court and
the
> same was recorded but dis-allowed by the Learned Additional Controller of
> Rents for lacking ground.
>
>
>
> 3. That as a matter of fact the Petitioner had filed written
statement
> along-with application for setting aside the order dated 12-01-2008 on the
> very next date but the same was not considered by the Learned Trial Court
> and without providing proper opportunity to the Petitioner passed impugned
> order, on 26-1-2008, thereby eviction was allowed. Petitioner's son
was also
> present on future date,
06.02.2008 when the impugned ex parte order was
>
finally passed by the Cantt court. It may be noted by
this
Hon'ble
court
> that
prior to this, the Petitioner had already filed a Civil Suit No.1051
of
> 2007 before the Learned VI Senior Civil Judge Karachi South on the same
> facts, grounds and substance which also being the same concrete material
> evidence and unshakable foundation of the written statement and thus
> precluding any chance of any deviation from the facts and material
evidence
> already placed on record by the Petitioner and lying concurrently with
> another judicial forum and where the matter is pending investigation
for
> adjudication on merits.
>
>
>
> 4. That the Respondent No.1 filed his counter-affidavit along-with
its
> annexures and he denied the allegation made against
him.
>
>
>
> 5. That the Petitioner filed
affidavit-in-rejoinder to the
> counter-affidavit filed by the
respondent No.1
and he denied
the
allegations
> made against him. The Petitioner has not defaulted in the payment of rent,
> neither sublet nor has been served with proper mandatory notice or had
any
> knowledge about the change in the renumbering and description of demised
> premises prior to being alleged by the Respondent.
>
>
>
> 6. That the Petitioner being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the
> exparte order dated 06-02-2008 passed by Respondent No.2 and the impugned
> order, dated 03-11-2008, passed by the Learned Single Judge of the
Hon'ble
> High Court of Sindh at Karachi, dismissing the FRA No.07 of 2008.
CIVIL REVIEW PETITION UNDER ORDER XXVI OF SUPREME COURT RULES, 1980,
AGAINST
> THE JUDGMENT DATED 19-12-2008, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF
> PAKISTAN IN CIVIL PETITION NO: CP-491K/08 (CIVIL PETITION FOR LEAVE TO
> APPEAL NO: CP-491K/08)
>
>
>
> Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment dated 19-12-2008
in Civil
> Appeal No.CP491-K/08 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
Petitioner
begs
to
> file this Review Petition inter alia on the following facts and grounds:
>
>
>
> Certified copy of the impugned order is filed herewith.
>
>
>
> FACTS OF THE CASE
>
>
>
> 1. That according to the Respondent No.1, he purchased the demised
> shop No.3 alleging it to be renumbered as such from the previous owner/
> landlady by virtue of sub-lease dated 10-05-2007 and the Petitioner is the
> tenant of originally demised shop No.2 at a monthly rent of Rs.812/= per
> month and he was inducted in the said demised shop by the previous
landlady.
> The Respondent No.1 submitted that after the purchase of the demised shop
> which is in possession of the appellant shop originally numbered as shop
> No.2 , he visited the
demised shop with one Malik Muhammad Afzal and
> informed the
Petitioner's
staff that he has
purchased the said demised
shop
> renumbered as shop No.3 and requested him to pay the future monthly rent
to
> the Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1 further submitted that he also
> informed the appellant through notice dated 30-05-2007 delivered through
TCS
> but it was returned undelivered due to close of the demised shop, another
> notice dated 05-06-2007 was sent to the Petitioner through TCS which was
> received by him. The Respondent No.1 claimed that he required the demised
> shop in good faith for his own personal bonafide use. The Respondent No.1
> alleged that the Petitioner is defaulter in payment of rent from May, 2007
> onwards and further alleged that the appellant committed default in
payment
> of Water & Conservancy Charges since his occupation
of the demised
shop. On
> the basis of such claims and
allegations the Respondent
No.1 prayed
for
the
> ejectment of the Petitioner.
>
>
>
> 2. That the bare intimation notice of change of ownership was sent
by
> the Respondent through bailiff. The bailiff reported on oath that the
notice
> has been received by the Petitioner's servant. Notice was also sent
through
> TCS. The Petitioner appeared in the Court on first hearing in court on
> 13-11-2007 and filed application for grant of time to engage lawyer and
> filing of written statement. The application was allowed and case
adjourned
> to 01-12-2007. On the next date 01-12-2007 P.O being busy in official
> meeting Petitioner son was allowed time and case was fixed for filing
of
> written statement to 11-12-2007 but none of the parties appeared and the
> matter was
adjourned to 12-01-2008, noted in the case dairy as
the
'last
> chance'. This Honb'le
court may be pleased
to
note that hardly 28
days had
> passed in the proceedings of statutory limit allowed to file written
> statement after which allowed time the Petitioner succeeded in finding
and
> engaging his said counsel who, on 12-01-2008 appeared for the Petitioner
> before the court and filed Vakalatnama and an application u/s 148 CPC r/w
> Section 151 CPC in the office but left the court taking along with
> Petitioner's son who had come to attend the hearing and submit the
written
> statement, without waiting himself or letting Petitioner's son wait
for the
> call. Consequently, to the utter shock, dismay and surprise of
> Petitioner and his son at counsel's uncalled for, unexpected and
peculiar
> conduct, the side of the Petitioner for filing of
written statement was
> closed and he was
proceeded against ex-parte and the Respondent No.1
was
> directed to
file
affidavit-in-exparte proof. On the next date i.e.
> 26-01-2008 the Petitioner's counsel filed application for setting
aside the
> order dated 12-01-2008 and submitted the written statement in court and
the
> same was recorded but dis-allowed by the Learned Additional Controller of
> Rents for lacking ground.
>
>
>
> 3. That as a matter of fact the Petitioner had filed written
statement
> along-with application for setting aside the order dated 12-01-2008 on the
> very next date but the same was not considered by the Learned Trial Court
> and without providing proper opportunity to the Petitioner passed impugned
> order, on 26-1-2008, thereby eviction was allowed. Petitioner's son
was also
> present on future date,
06.02.2008 when the impugned ex parte order was
>
finally passed by the Cantt court. It may be noted by
this
Hon'ble
court
> that
prior to this, the Petitioner had already filed a Civil Suit No.1051
of
> 2007 before the Learned VI Senior Civil Judge Karachi South on the same
> facts, grounds and substance which also being the same concrete material
> evidence and unshakable foundation of the written statement and thus
> precluding any chance of any deviation from the facts and material
evidence
> already placed on record by the Petitioner and lying concurrently with
> another judicial forum and where the matter is pending investigation
for
> adjudication on merits.
>
>
>
> 4. That the Respondent No.1 filed his counter-affidavit along-with
its
> annexures and he denied the allegation made against
him.
>
>
>
> 5. That the Petitioner filed
affidavit-in-rejoinder to the
> counter-affidavit filed by the
respondent No.1
and he denied
the
allegations
> made against him. The Petitioner has not defaulted in the payment of rent,
> neither sublet nor has been served with proper mandatory notice or had
any
> knowledge about the change in the renumbering and description of demised
> premises prior to being alleged by the Respondent.
>
>
>
> 6. That the Petitioner being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the
> exparte order dated 06-02-2008 passed by Respondent No.2 and the impugned
> order, dated 03-11-2008, passed by the Learned Single Judge of the
Hon'ble
> High Court of Sindh at Karachi, dismissing the FRA No.07 of 2008.
I'm not going to wade through all these court documents to decipher what your story is. If you want an answer, set out the facts. Simply, and in short sentences.
(Permit me to add a stylistic comment: the fact that you have not done that thus far suggests you have a tendency to complicate things. I would suggest you simplify things in your presentation to the Court. If Pakistani courts are anything like North American courts, your judge will like being led by the hand. Make it easy for him or her.)
(Permit me to add a stylistic comment: the fact that you have not done that thus far suggests you have a tendency to complicate things. I would suggest you simplify things in your presentation to the Court. If Pakistani courts are anything like North American courts, your judge will like being led by the hand. Make it easy for him or her.)
Last edited:
SUMMARY OF THE CASE:
From April 1987 to 12,12,08
I took a shop on pugree/rent in 1987 in the Clifton Cantt area and am
in possession thereof till this day. After a series of litigations, I
later purchased it from its owner/landlady through her attorney-
husband vide a duly receipted sale agreement executed in 2006.
Instead of performing the Sale agreement, the seller landlady
secretly sold out and transferred the shop through a registered sub
lease to a third party who is my existing Opponent and of whom I came
to know when he and his henchman created a scene at the shop for
'possession by force''. ( a rent case filed against me by the
landlady for eviction was also pending in the Clifton Cantt Court and
which was to be withdrawn by the landlady as per terms of sale
agreement. However, she didn't do that and, on the contrary,
transferred the shop in the name of my Opponent, a member of land
mafia, having changed the Shop description/number about which neither
I nor the court ever knew nor did the Seller landlady ever inform
about)
After the cantt court had dismissed landlady's previous ejectment
application for non-prosecution and non-maintainability stating it as
a case of civil nature, my opponent filed a new ejectment application
(2007) against me with the same Clifton cantt court. I was supposed to
file a written statement in reply for which I took time from the
court to engage a lawyer. Eventually I engaged a lawyer and gave him
all the relevant papers and documents. The written statement was
prepared and signed by me but at the date of hearing my lawyer
mysteriously did not file the written statement with the court and
without waiting for his call/turn slipped away after filing filed an
application with the reader asking for grant of some time for
filing written statement. On the next date he appeared before the
Presiding Officer Cantt and submitted the written statement in open
Court but the judge closed my side and ordered eviction. The Presiding
Officer Cantt rerjected his plea on oath that 2) he --the advocate
-could not file written statement because there was a strike in the
city court and no oath commissioner was available to him to get the
documents certified.
BEFORE the Cantt court closed my side and ordered eviction, I filed a
case for Specific performance with the Senior Civil Judge and Rent
Controller VI (south) which granted me a 'stay'.
Pending above , the matter was put up for Appeal against Rent
Controller's Eviction Order with the high court which initially
granted a ''stay '' but later dismissed the Appeal itself on
katcha peshi for technical reasons of '' non-appearance of
advocate/party and unacceptability of flimsy grounds for non-
submission of written statement.''
Consequently, I went to the Supreme court (first (and last )hearing
there was on 18/12/2008 --yesterday) against the Orders of the High
Court but the SC dismissed my application for leave to appeal stating
that ' according to record my advocate had filed a false affidavit
in trying to cover up his failure to submit written statement on time
and to appear before the trial court'' and he ''ought to be
prosecuted'' and that I should vacate the shop in 60 days. ( SC's
order is not yet in hand)
Now my opponent has filed an application for execution against me,
notice has not been received yet, next date with the Court of Civil
Judge is 7/1/2009 and that for the Specific performance case is..17.Jan (nnow both hearings are on 17th Jan/09)
From April 1987 to 12,12,08
I took a shop on pugree/rent in 1987 in the Clifton Cantt area and am
in possession thereof till this day. After a series of litigations, I
later purchased it from its owner/landlady through her attorney-
husband vide a duly receipted sale agreement executed in 2006.
Instead of performing the Sale agreement, the seller landlady
secretly sold out and transferred the shop through a registered sub
lease to a third party who is my existing Opponent and of whom I came
to know when he and his henchman created a scene at the shop for
'possession by force''. ( a rent case filed against me by the
landlady for eviction was also pending in the Clifton Cantt Court and
which was to be withdrawn by the landlady as per terms of sale
agreement. However, she didn't do that and, on the contrary,
transferred the shop in the name of my Opponent, a member of land
mafia, having changed the Shop description/number about which neither
I nor the court ever knew nor did the Seller landlady ever inform
about)
After the cantt court had dismissed landlady's previous ejectment
application for non-prosecution and non-maintainability stating it as
a case of civil nature, my opponent filed a new ejectment application
(2007) against me with the same Clifton cantt court. I was supposed to
file a written statement in reply for which I took time from the
court to engage a lawyer. Eventually I engaged a lawyer and gave him
all the relevant papers and documents. The written statement was
prepared and signed by me but at the date of hearing my lawyer
mysteriously did not file the written statement with the court and
without waiting for his call/turn slipped away after filing filed an
application with the reader asking for grant of some time for
filing written statement. On the next date he appeared before the
Presiding Officer Cantt and submitted the written statement in open
Court but the judge closed my side and ordered eviction. The Presiding
Officer Cantt rerjected his plea on oath that 2) he --the advocate
-could not file written statement because there was a strike in the
city court and no oath commissioner was available to him to get the
documents certified.
BEFORE the Cantt court closed my side and ordered eviction, I filed a
case for Specific performance with the Senior Civil Judge and Rent
Controller VI (south) which granted me a 'stay'.
Pending above , the matter was put up for Appeal against Rent
Controller's Eviction Order with the high court which initially
granted a ''stay '' but later dismissed the Appeal itself on
katcha peshi for technical reasons of '' non-appearance of
advocate/party and unacceptability of flimsy grounds for non-
submission of written statement.''
Consequently, I went to the Supreme court (first (and last )hearing
there was on 18/12/2008 --yesterday) against the Orders of the High
Court but the SC dismissed my application for leave to appeal stating
that ' according to record my advocate had filed a false affidavit
in trying to cover up his failure to submit written statement on time
and to appear before the trial court'' and he ''ought to be
prosecuted'' and that I should vacate the shop in 60 days. ( SC's
order is not yet in hand)
Now my opponent has filed an application for execution against me,
notice has not been received yet, next date with the Court of Civil
Judge is 7/1/2009 and that for the Specific performance case is..17.Jan (nnow both hearings are on 17th Jan/09)
Last edited:
SUMMARY OF THE CASE:
From April 1987 to 12,12,08
I took a shop on pugree/rent in 1987 in the Clifton Cantt area and am
in possession thereof till this day. After a series of litigations, I
later purchased it from its owner/landlady through her attorney-
husband vide a duly receipted sale agreement executed in 2006.
Instead of performing the Sale agreement, the seller landlady
secretly sold out and transferred the shop through a registered sub
lease to a third party who is my existing Opponent and of whom I came
to know when he and his henchman created a scene at the shop for
'possession by force''. ( a rent case filed against me by the
landlady for eviction was also pending in the Clifton Cantt Court and
which was to be withdrawn by the landlady as per terms of sale
agreement. However, she didn't do that and, on the contrary,
transferred the shop in the name of my Opponent, a member of land
mafia, having changed the Shop description/number about which neither
I nor the court ever knew nor did the Seller landlady ever inform
about)
After the cantt court had dismissed landlady's previous ejectment
application for non-prosecution and non-maintainability stating it as
a case of civil nature, my opponent filed a new ejectment application
(2007) against me with the same Clifton cantt court. I was supposed to
file a written statement in reply for which I took time from the
court to engage a lawyer. Eventually I engaged a lawyer and gave him
all the relevant papers and documents. The written statement was
prepared and signed by me but at the date of hearing my lawyer
mysteriously did not file the written statement with the court and
without waiting for his call/turn slipped away after filing filed an
application with the reader asking for grant of some time for
filing written statement. On the next date he appeared before the
Presiding Officer Cantt and submitted the written statement in open
Court but the judge closed my side and ordered eviction. The Presiding
Officer Cantt rerjected his plea on oath that 2) he --the advocate
-could not file written statement because there was a strike in the
city court and no oath commissioner was available to him to get the
documents certified.
BEFORE the Cantt court closed my side and ordered eviction, I filed a
case for Specific performance with the Senior Civil Judge and Rent
Controller VI (south) which granted me a 'stay'.
Pending above , the matter was put up for Appeal against Rent
Controller's Eviction Order with the high court which initially
granted a ''stay '' but later dismissed the Appeal itself on
katcha peshi for technical reasons of '' non-appearance of
advocate/party and unacceptability of flimsy grounds for non-
submission of written statement.''
Consequently, I went to the Supreme court (first (and last )hearing
there was on 18/12/2008 --yesterday) against the Orders of the High
Court but the SC dismissed my application for leave to appeal stating
that ' according to record my advocate had filed a false affidavit
in trying to cover up his failure to submit written statement on time
and to appear before the trial court'' and he ''ought to be
prosecuted'' and that I should vacate the shop in 60 days. ( SC's
order is not yet in hand)
Now my opponent has filed an application for execution against me,
notice has not been received yet, next date with the Court of Civil
Judge is 7/1/2009 and that for the Specific performance case is..17.Jan (nnow both hearings are on 17th Jan/09)
Hi
here's a leading Judgment for your perusal
DECISION
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache...ies&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=pk&client=firefox-a
I'm not going to wade through all these court documents to decipher what your story is. If you want an answer, set out the facts. Simply, and in short sentences.
(Permit me to add a stylistic comment: the fact that you have not done that thus far suggests you have a tendency to complicate things. I would suggest you simplify things in your presentation to the Court. If Pakistani courts are anything like North American courts, your judge will like being led by the hand. Make it easy for him or her.)
appreciate your comments but please remember it's my OWN case and for appearance-in=person before that apex forum. Consequently, when som layman is pleading his own case as such he's bound to be overwhelmed with 'emotions' and open to repetitions. This is all you will find in my Petition. Had it been a client's case i may have done the whole story in 2 or 3 pages using legalese.
To 'move' the judges in Pakistan you often have to beat your drum louder and louder and put necessary arguments in writing. Judges base their decisions here on what you put on paper. Often they do not even allow parties to speak in courts.
I agree there have been repetitions in the write up but if you are a lawyer you should be able to get at the crux of the matter easly. The points for consideration or the issues that I mentioned earlier constitute the basis of whole case.
An honest Judge doesn't go by the form or face of things but the facts before him. this is what i have tried to do in my humble way.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
