Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

GROUNDS

a) That the learned lower appellate court while deciding appeal filed against the

dismissal of stay application remanded the case with the direction to decide stay

application afresh but after obtaining report from local commission, thus the

learned Additional District Judge exercised power not vested in it, while deciding

the appeal preferred by the respondent was against dismissal of stay application

and not against the appointment of local commission, the matter relating to

appointment of local commission has already been attained finality, request for

the appointment of local commission with the direction to demarcate the

property in buildup area was turned down uptill Hon’ble Lahore High Court, while

dismissing the writ petition No.311/ 2010 vide order dated 12.01.2010.

b) That the learned Additional District Judge has failed to exercise the

jurisdiction vested in it, while passing impugned order dated 07.04.2011 as the

appeal was preferred by the respondent was against dismissal of stay

application, thus only matter relating to stay was required to be adjudicated by

the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore and not for the appointment of local

commission so the matter for appointment of local commission after dismissal of

writ petition No.311 / 2010 was neither tenable nor required to be taken into

consideration and the said issue was barred by Section 11 under the principle of

resjudicata, thus in the present circumstances, it can be well said that the

learned District Judge has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it for

deciding appeal rather to reopen the question of appointment of local

commission in the appeal filed against dismissal of stay application.

c) That the impugned order passed by the Additional District Judge suffers from

serious illegality and material irregularity as stated above question of


appointment of local commission has been decided uptill Hon’ble Lahore High

Court in the earlier round of litigation, wherein the writ petition No.311/ 2010

filed by the respondent was dismissed by his Lordship Mr. Justice Azmat Saeed

vide order dated 12.01.2010, therefore, in the said circumstances under the

principle of resjudicata the learned Additional District Judge have had no appear

reopen question of appointment of local commission, rather no such jurisdiction

vested in it to re-open and interpret the order passed by the Hon’ble Lahore High

Court, thus in this way learned District Judge have not only committed material

irregularity and illegality, rather exercise the power not vested in it.

d) That learned Additional District Judge has mis-construed the facts on record

and order suffers from serious illegality and material irregularity but the same is

result of non-reading of facts and documents on record.

e) That the impugned jugement and order is unlawful, illegal, against the law

and result of conjecture and surmises.

f) That the impugned order is fanciful and has been passed in hasty manner

against the facts and documents on record.

g) That the impugned order is nullity in the eyes of law being contrary to the

facts and documents on record as well as against jugement passed by his

Lordship Mr. Justice Azmat Saeed, whereby the writ petition No.311 /2010 filed

by respondent was dismissed vide order dated 12.01.2010.

h) That bare perusal of the order, especially para 8 of the order, shows that

while deciding the appeal filed by respondent against dismissal of stay

applciaiton, the learned District Judge has re-opened the question of


appointment of local commission, while giving undue observation for

appointment of local commission and attempted to mis-interepret the order

dated 12.01.2010 passed by the Hon’ble Lahore High Court, whereby writ

petition No.311 / 2010 was dismissed.

Centres d'intérêt liés