10 2014 CLC 185

2014 C L C 185
[Peshawar]
Before Assadullah Khan Chamkani and Muhammad Daud Khan, JJ
MUHAMMAD AKBAR KHAN and another----Petitioners
Versus
MUHAMMAD NAEEM KHAN and 6 others----Respondents
Writ Petition No.921 of 2005, decided on 6th June, 2013.
Constitution of Pakistan---
----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Scope---Lease of land---Default in payment of lease

money---Order for ejectment of tenants---Validity---Tenancy existed between the parties---
Defendants neither produced any receipt nor any person to prove payment of lease money or
produce---Suit-land had been sold in favour of plaintiffs---Plaintiffs were landlords whereas
defendants were tenants who were defaulters and were liable to be ejected---Objection with
regard to non-framing of issues had been raised for the first time before the High Court in
constitutional jurisdiction and was never raised before the appellate, revisional or review forum--
-Such objection was meaningless as both the parties had adduced their evidence as they wished--
-Constitutional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court was of extraordinary nature which was
not for interference with the matter pertaining to the exclusive domain of tribunal or statutory
forum unless it was shown that order, action or inaction was in violation of any provision of law
or without lawful authority or jurisdiction---Defendants had failed to make out a case for the
indulgence of the High Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction---No jurisdictional error, illegality
or irregularity was found in the impugned judgments/orders---Constitutional petition was
dismissed.
Fazal Muhammad Bhatti and another v. Mst. Saeeda Akhtar and 2 others 1993 SCMR
2018 and Eada Khan v. Mst. Ghemwar and others 2004 SCMR 1524 rel.
Abdul Wadood for Petitioners.

Nasir Mehmood for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 6th June, 2013.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, J.--- Through this writ petition under Article 199 of the
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioners have challenged the orders of
hierarchy of Revenue Court i.e. respondents Nos.4 to 7 in the petition.
2. Necessary facts of the instant petition are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for
produce and ejectment of petitioners/defendants in respect of land bearing Khasra Nos.491, 492,
494, 500, village Sakhakot on the basis of landlord/purchased owners and the
petitioners/defendants were defaulting tenants of the land.
3. The petitioners/defendants denied the allegations and contested the suit by submitting the
written statement. After recording of evidence, the suit of respondents was decreed vide
judgment and decree dated 28-11-2002 by DDOR, Dargai in favour of respondents Nos. 1 to 3
to the tune of Rs.150,000/- for the past three years and ejectment. This judgment and decree was
upheld by D.O.R/Collector, Malakand vide judgment and decree dated 28-8-2003.
4. The petitioners then assailed the above judgment in revision petition before Revenue
Appellate Court No.III, Headquarter at Saidu Sharif, which were modified to the extent of
reducing the period of default vide order/judgment dated 5-10-2004, but instant modification was
set aside by the Senior Member Board of Revenue, who restored the judgments and decrees of
respondents Nos.4 and 5 vide impugned order dated 20-4-2005. Hence, this writ petition.
5. The main contentions of the petitioners are that the respondents/plaintiffs have not given
any notice to them regarding the purchased ownership of previous owner Muhammad Akbar
Khan and petitioners are the tenant of Malibaz Khan and plaintiffs have no concern with
ownership of suit-land; they challenged the validity of judgment of learned trial Court as the
Court did not frame the issues, therefore, judgments and decrees are null and void in the eye of
law.
6. Arguments heard and record minutely perused with valuable assistance of learned
counsel for the parties.
7. The petitioners/defendants admitted the tenancy in their written statement and stated that
they have paid the lease money to the real owner/landlord, but they neither produced any receipt
to this effect, nor produced any person to prove payment of the lease money or produce.
Malikbaz son of Saidbaz, who was admittedly the previous owner of the suit-land, was
examined, who stated that he sold the suit-land to Nek Muhammad Khan on 7-6-1993. It is
worth-mentioning that this Nek Muhammad had further sold the suit-land in favour of
plaintiff/respondent on 8-7-1993 and both the deeds, Exhs.P.W.3/2 and 3/3, were duly exhibited.
Sarbiland V.C. as P.W.-1 produced Khasra-e-Girdawri of irrigation Exh.P.W.1/1 in support of
version of the respondents/plaintiffs.
8. All the fora in Revenue hierarchy are unanimous to the fact that as respondents/plaintiffs
Nos.1 to 3 are landlord and petitioners/ defendants were tenant and defaulters and liable to be
ejected from the suit-land.
9. The learned S.M.B.R., who is apex forum in the revenue hierarchy, rightly restored and
upheld the order dated 28-11-2002 of D.D.O. (J) and order dated 28-8-2003 of D.O.R/Collector,
Malakand. The other contention of petitioners, that the trial Court did not frame the issues,
therefore, judgments of all the Courts are not sustainable. This objection carries no weight, as the
objection has been raised by the petitioners for the first time before this constitutional forum.
They never questioned or raised objection before the appellate, revisional or review forum. This
question of framing or non-framing of issues is meaningless because both the parties adduced
their evidence as they wished. It is a well-settled law that if once the parties are alive to
contention raised and when once evidence is adduced in support of such contention, the framing
or non-framing of issues loses significance. Reliance can be placed on the case-law reported in
1993 SCMR 2018 Fazal Muhammad Bhatti and another v. Mst. Saeeda Akhtar and 2 others 2004
SCMR 1524 "Eada Khan v. Mst. Ghemwar and others".
10. Moreover, jurisdiction conferred on High Court under Article 199 is of extraordinary
nature, has been exercised springly and not interfere with matter pertaining to the exclusive
domain of tribunal or statutory forum unless it is shown that the order, action or inaction
is in violation of any provision of law or without lawful authority or jurisdiction.
11. Judged and considered from all legal and factual aspects, the petitioners have failed to
make out a case for the indulgence of this Court in the matter in its extraordinary writ
jurisdiction. This petition, in our view, is devoid of merit and liable to dismissal.
No jurisdictional error, illegality or irregularity is found in the impugned

judgments/orders, hence this writ petition being meritless, is dismissed.
AG/540/P Petition dismissed.

10 2014 CLC 185

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 2014 CLC 185

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2014 C L C 185

Before Assadullah Khan Chamkani and Muhammad Daud Khan, JJ

MUHAMMAD AKBAR KHAN and another----Petitioners

MUHAMMAD NAEEM KHAN and 6 others----Respondents

Writ Petition No.921 of 2005, decided on 6th June, 2013.

----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Scope---Lease of land---Default in payment of lease

Abdul Wadood for Petitioners.

Date of hearing: 6th June, 2013.

No jurisdictional error, illegality or irregularity is found in the impugned

AG/540/P Petition dismissed.

You might also like