2004 PLP 1356 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD DIN (deceased) through Mujahid Hussain Qasim and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AMIN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1356 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD DIN (deceased) through Mujahid Hussain Qasim and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AMIN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1356 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1356 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1356 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD DIN (deceased) through Mujahid Hussain Qasim and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AMIN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Anwar Bhaur, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th May, 2002.
- ----S. 42---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Suit for declaration---Plaintiff challenged validity of decree having been obtained after death of predecessor-in-interest of defendant---Two Advocates while appearing as witnesses stated that, such decree, was passed in presence' of predecessor-in-interest of defendant---Trial Court relying on their evidence concluded that such decree had been validly passed- Appellate Court and High Court maintained such findings ---Validity-- Predecessor-in-interest of defendant had not challenged such decree in his life time---Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave.
- We are not inclined to accept the above contentions of the learned counsel because a perusal of the judgments delivered by the Courts below indicates that the decree, dated 26-7-1972 was passed in presence of said Rehmat Ali as this fact had been testified by Messrs Abdul Hamid Shah and Mian Tariq, Advocates who appeared as D.Ws. before the trial Court. The learned trial Court after having taken into consideration the fact of their evidence concluded that the decree, dated 26-7-1972 was validly passed. Such finding has been maintained by the Appellate Court as well as by the High Court. It may be noted that Rehmat Ali did not challenge the said decree during his lifetime, therefore, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment being unexceptionable admits no interference by this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave refused.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 31-5-1999 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Civil Revision No. 516 of 1984).
S. 42
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Plaintiff challenged validity of decree having been obtained after death of predecessor-in-interest of defendant
Two Advocates while appearing as witnesses stated that, such decree, was passed in presence' of predecessor-in-interest of defendant
Trial Court relying on their evidence concluded that such decree had been validly passed- Appellate Court and High Court maintained such findings
Validity-- Predecessor-in-interest of defendant had not challenged such decree in his life time
Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.
Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 31-5-1999 of the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Civil Revision No. 516 of 1984 filed by the petitioners was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the decree, dated 26-7-1972 was fraudulently obtained by Muhammad Amin, respondent No.1 and according to him Rehmat Ali, predecessor-in -interest of the respondents, never appeared before the Court, therefore, for such reason the petitioners filed a suit on 5-12-1977 after the death of said Rehmat Ali who died on 26-2-1976. According to him, the learned First Appellate Court as well the learned High Court without having attended to this aspect of the case had dismissed their suit. We are not inclined to accept the above contentions of the learned counsel because a perusal of the judgments delivered by the Courts below indicates that the decree, dated 26-7-1972 was passed in presence of said Rehmat Ali as this fact had been testified by Messrs Abdul Hamid Shah and Mian Tariq, Advocates who appeared as D.Ws. before the trial Court. The learned trial Court after having taken into consideration the fact of their evidence concluded that the decree, dated 26-7-1972 was validly passed. Such finding has been maintained by the Appellate Court as well as by the High Court. It may be noted that Rehmat Ali did not challenge the said decree during his lifetime, therefore, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment being unexceptionable admits no interference by this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./M-587/S Leave refused.