| Case ID |
3882ac11-3b91-4d75-8a62-07b2b6795f15 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Regular Second Appeal No.22 of 1976 |
| Decision Date |
Oct 02, 2000 |
| Hearing Date |
Oct 02, 2000 |
| Decision |
The appeal was dismissed as the plaintiff failed to provide evidence that he had obtained necessary consent from the defendants for the construction of the mosque. The courts below found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated any written consent or implied permission from the defendants, leading to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the expenses incurred. |
| Summary |
In this case, the Lahore High Court dealt with a Regular Second Appeal concerning a suit for recovery of expenses incurred in the construction of a mosque. The plaintiff, Muhammad Ramzan, claimed to have spent Rs. 14,780 on the construction under the implied consent of the defendants, who were the Chief Administrator Auqaf and others. However, the plaintiff could not produce evidence of any written permission or implied consent from the defendants. The trial court dismissed the suit, a decision that was upheld by the District Judge. The High Court found that the lack of evidence of authorization for the construction justified the dismissal of the appeal. This case highlights the importance of obtaining explicit consent when undertaking construction projects on property where consent is required. Legal practitioners should advise clients on the necessity of documented permissions to avoid disputes and ensure compliance with legal standards. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
SHEIKH ABDUR RAZZAQ, J
|
| Lawyers |
Muhammad Abdullah Qureshi,
Shamshir Iqbal Chughtai
|
| Petitioners |
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN
|
| Respondents |
3 others,
CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR AUQAF, PUNJAB, LAHORE
|
| Citations |
2001 SLD 2610 = 2001 CLC 1755
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
|
| Sections |
O. -VII, R.2
|