| Case ID |
67dad412-0083-4596-b083-a9f5d05d021a |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
C.R. No. 145-D of 2015 |
| Decision Date |
Feb 29, 2016 |
| Hearing Date |
Feb 29, 2016 |
| Decision |
The Peshawar High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by Muhammad Nawaz on February 29, 2016. The court held that the decree holder, even without being the sole owner, was entitled to execute the decree on joint property. The petitioner’s plea that actual possession could not be granted without proper partition was rejected because the judgment debtor was found to be an encroacher by a competent court, and the order had attained finality. Additionally, the petitioner could not benefit from his own delays, and any objections raised had already been addressed by the trial court. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, affirming the enforcement of the decree. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case C.R. No. 145-D of 2015, adjudicated by the Peshawar High Court on February 29, 2016, the petitioner Muhammad Nawaz challenged an order dated April 25, 2015, issued by the Additional District Judge of Paharpur, D.I.Khan. Represented by advocate Haji Salim Nawaz Awan, Muhammad Nawaz contested the dismissal of his appeal against the decree passed by Civil Judge-I, Paharpur, D.I.Khan. The crux of the dispute centered on the execution of a decree concerning joint property under the Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), specifically Section 47. Nawaz argued that as the decree holder was not the sole owner, executing the decree without a proper partition violated his rights to actual possession. He further contended that without partition, he could not lawfully hold the field in question. However, the court, presided over by Justice Muhammad Ghazanfer Khan, refuted these claims by establishing that Muhammad Ramzan, the respondent, was not a co-owner but had been found to be an encroacher by a competent jurisdiction, thereby invalidating Nawaz’s objections. The court emphasized that the decree had attained finality and that Nawaz could not exploit procedural delays to his advantage. Additionally, the court noted that Nawaz's age and inability to appear in person did not warrant condonation of delay, especially since his son had been regularly appearing on his behalf. The judgment underscored the principle that decree holders cannot be deprived of their rights on flimsy grounds and reaffirmed the enforceability of decrees even in joint property scenarios when one party is found to be unlawfully encroaching. Consequently, the Peshawar High Court dismissed the revision petition, maintaining the integrity of the initial decree and upholding the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. This decision highlights the judiciary’s stance on safeguarding decree holders’ rights and ensuring that legal processes are not manipulated to delay or undermine judicial decisions. The case serves as a precedent for similar disputes involving joint property and the execution of decrees, reinforcing the necessity of clear legal frameworks and the importance of adhering to procedural proprieties in civil matters. |
| Court |
Peshawar High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ,
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN,
MUHAMMAD GHAZANFER KHAN,
Haji Salim Nawaz Awan,
Muhammad Sajid Shahzad
|
| Judges |
MUHAMMAD GHAZANFER KHAN
|
| Lawyers |
Haji Salim Nawaz Awan,
Muhammad Sajid Shahzad
|
| Petitioners |
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ
|
| Respondents |
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN
|
| Citations |
2017 SLD 2334,
2017 MLD 854
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
|
| Sections |
47
|