| Case ID |
39a81caf-c14b-48a1-b448-01f059371fe5 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Revision No. 542 of 2010 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 20, 2018 |
| Hearing Date |
Feb 28, 2018 |
| Decision |
The Quetta High Court in Civil Revision No. 542 of 2010, delivered by Justice Abdullah Baloch on March 20, 2018, reviewed the decisions dated March 13, 2010, and October 29, 2010, passed by the Civil Judge-IV and the Additional District Judge-V, respectively. The court found that the lower courts had erred in their judgment by failing to properly frame issues and record evidence, leading to a misappreciation of the law. Specifically, the court noted that the trial and appellate courts did not consider the root causes of the case, which held significant public importance. Consequently, the Quetta High Court set aside the impugned judgments and decrees, remanding the case back to the trial court. The trial court was directed to provide full and fair opportunities to all parties to present their written statements, frame issues appropriately, and record evidence comprehensively. This remand was to be completed within three months, ensuring that the case is decided on its merits in accordance with the law, thereby addressing the issues of misreading and non-reading of applicable legal provisions by the lower courts. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Civil Revision No. 542 of 2010, the Quetta High Court meticulously dissected the legal proceedings that transpired between the Quetta Metropolitan Corporation and Abdul Malik & Others. The case, cited as 2019 SLD 2181 and 2019 PLJ 65, revolved around the contentious issue of the removal and reinstatement of cabins and khokhas near key government offices in Quetta. Initially granted permission in the mid-1980s by the defunct Quetta Municipal Corporation, the plaintiffs faced adversity when their cabins were damaged during the tumultuous events following the assassination of Nawab Muhammad Akbar Bugti in 2006. Despite having paid taxes and securing permissions, the abrupt change in local administration led to demands for the removal of these structures, sparking legal battles.
The Quetta High Court, presided over by Justice Abdullah Baloch, critically reviewed the decisions of the lower courts, highlighting significant procedural lapses. The trial court had decreed in favor of the plaintiffs without adequately framing the issues or recording essential evidence, effectively sidelining the legal intricacies of property rights and administrative authority. The appellate court mirrored these shortcomings, leading to a consistent miscarriage of justice that the High Court was compelled to rectify.
Emphasizing the principles of fair trial and legal adherence, the High Court set aside the previous judgments, mandating a comprehensive re-examination of the case. This directive ensures that all parties are given an equitable platform to present their arguments, and that the legal process is meticulously followed to uphold the rule of law. The case underscores the importance of proper legal procedures in administrative disputes and sets a precedent for future cases involving municipal governance and property rights in Pakistan. With its focus on judicial integrity and procedural fairness, this decision not only resolves the immediate conflict but also reinforces the foundational legal standards that safeguard citizen rights against arbitrary administrative actions. Keywords such as 'Quetta High Court decision,' 'property rights in Pakistan,' 'administrative law case study,' and 'judicial fairness' are integral to understanding the case's impact and its relevance in contemporary legal discourse. |
| Court |
Quetta High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
National Bank of Pakistan,
Quetta Metropolitan Corporation,
Chiltan Town,
Nazim,
Pak P.W.D,
Burma Hotel,
Sariab Road,
A.G Office
|
| Judges |
ABDULLAH BALOCH
|
| Lawyers |
Mr. Iqbal Shah,
Mr. Waseem Khan Jadoon
|
| Petitioners |
Quetta Metropolitan Corporation through Administrator (Successor of Administrator of Chiltan Town), Quetta
|
| Respondents |
Abdul Malik & Others
|
| Citations |
2019 SLD 2181,
2019 PLJ 65
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Specific Relief Act, 1877
|
| Sections |
42,
54
|