| Case ID |
04f17ff6-e4c5-4bbc-a116-022fb0366c7d |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Revision No. 241 of 2004 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 11, 2005 |
| Hearing Date |
Mar 07, 2005 |
| Decision |
The High Court accepted the revision petition filed by Mst. Kishwar Naseem and set aside the decisions of the lower courts. It ruled that the petitioner had been deprived of her property without due process, as proper notice was not served to her. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to mandatory statutory obligations in the service of notices and highlighted that the failure of the subordinate courts to provide copies of necessary documents within the stipulated time frame could not disadvantage the petitioner. The judgment reinforced the principle that the courts should not shut their doors on a party with a genuine grievance and that procedural technicalities should not prevent justice. Ultimately, the petitioner was entitled to retain her ownership of the suit plot, subject to her liability for additional charges due to non-utilization of the property. |
| Summary |
In the case of Mst. Kishwar Naseem vs. Hazara Hill Tract and others, the Peshawar High Court addressed significant issues regarding procedural justice and the rights of property owners under the law. The petitioner, Mst. Kishwar Naseem, contested the cancellation of her allotment of a plot that she purchased in an open auction in 1967. The Court found that the lower courts had failed to provide her with proper notice regarding the cancellation and that the mandatory requirements of the Civil Procedure Code were not met. The Court ruled that the failure to notify the petitioner effectively denied her the opportunity to defend her rights, violating the principles of natural justice. The decision underscores the importance of procedural compliance in legal proceedings, especially concerning property rights, and the necessity for courts to provide relief to parties who have been wronged by inadequate legal processes. This case highlights the vital balance between adherence to procedural regulations and the overarching goal of delivering justice, particularly in property disputes. Keywords such as 'property rights', 'natural justice', and 'legal compliance' are essential for understanding the implications of this ruling. |
| Court |
Peshawar High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Dost Muhammad Khan, J
|
| Lawyers |
Abdul Sattar Khan,
Malik Manzoor Hussain
|
| Petitioners |
Mst. Kishwar Naseem
|
| Respondents |
others,
Hazara Hill Tract
|
| Citations |
2005 SLD 1839,
2005 PLD 136
|
| Other Citations |
Imtiaz Ahmad v. Ghulam Ali PLD 1963 SC 382,
Riasat Ali v. Muhammad Jaffar Khan and 2 others 1991 SCMR 496,
Deputy Commissioner Pashin v. Abdul Salam and others PLD 1993 Quetta 121,
Sultan Khan and 3 others v. Sultan Khan 2004 MLD 918,
Gulzar Ahmad's case 2005 CLC 307,
Muhammad Islam's case (2004 MLD 1029,
Ezat Khan's case PLD 2001 Kar. 396,
Allah Dino and another v. Muhammad Shah and others 2001 SCMR 286,
Punjab Road Transport Corporation's case 2003 CLC 1239,
Mst. Gohar Taja's case 2003 YLR 1994,
Faizullah and others case PLD 2003 Pesh. 217
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
General Clauses Act, 1897,
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
|
| Sections |
115,
27,
24
|