1989SCMR92 (PLP)
ALLAH DITTA — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR92 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | ALLAH DITTA — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR92 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR92 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR92 (PLP) (ALLAH DITTA — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maqbool Ilahi Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanveer Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. Muhammad Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana MA. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 6th June, 1988.
- Maqbool Ilahi Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanveer Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. Muhammad Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana MA. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 9-4-1985 passed in C.R. No. 568 of 1985).
S. 12(2)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Pre-emption--Decree by fraud or collusion--Setting aside of. Leave to appeal granted to examine, inter alia, question whether in a pre emption matter, Civil Court can question decree granted by Revenue Court: if the answer is in affirmative in case of fraud and collusion notwithstanding provisions of section 12(2), C.P.C. could Civil Court set at naught the decree, by Revenue Court, without framing issues on the question of collusion and affording an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and then determine the same as an independent question; whether in circumstances, it would be possible by Supreme Court to decide question with regard to propriety of one or the other decree on merits.
Judgment & Decree
Leave to appeal granted to examine, inter alia, question whether in a pre emption matter, Civil Court can question decree granted by Revenue Court: if the answer is in affirmative in case of fraud and collusion notwithstanding provisions of section 12(2), C.P.C. could Civil Court set at naught the decree, by Revenue Court, without framing issues on the question of collusion and affording an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and then determine the same as an independent question; whether in circumstances, it would be possible by Supreme Court to decide question with regard to propriety of one or the other decree on merits. Maqbool Ilahi Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanveer Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana MA. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th June, 1988. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the vendee's side in a pre‑emption matter against the dismissal of his Civil Revision by the High Court. After hearing both the learned counsel at some length, we consider it a fit case, inter alia, to examine the question whether in a pre‑emption matter, the Civil Court can question the decree granted by a Revenue Court: if the answer is in the affirmative in case of fraud and collusion notwithstanding the provisions of Section 12(2), C.P.C., could the Civil Court set at naught the decree, by the Revenue Court, without framing issues on the question of collusion and affording an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and then determine the same as an independent question; whether in the circumstances, it would be possible by this Court to decide the question with regard to propriety of one or the other decree on merits. Leave to appeal accordingly is granted. Security Rs. 5,
000. The appeal to be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file necessary additional documents within two months. Status quo to continue subject to the petitioner's furnishing security for mesne profit to the satisfaction of the executing Court. M.I./A‑343/S Leave granted.