2003 PLP 630 (MLD)
SAFDAR ALI SHAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR, GUJRAT and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 630 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakoor Paracha, J |
| Parties | SAFDAR ALI SHAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR, GUJRAT and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 630 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 630 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Shakoor Paracha, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 630 (MLD) (SAFDAR ALI SHAH‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR, GUJRAT and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Abdul Saleem for Petitioner.
- Ch. Muhammad Sharif for Respondent No.2.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.12(2)‑‑‑West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) application Act (V of 1962), S.2‑A [as amended by Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (Amendment) Ordinance (XIII of 1983)]‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑ Application for setting aside judgment and decree on plea of fraud‑‑ Dismissal of application‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Application for setting aside judgment and decree on plea of fraud by respondent was dismissed by Trial Court observing that operation of impugned judgment and decree had abated under S.2‑A of West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962‑‑‑Pending revision against judgment of Trial Court, respondent filed application before District Collector for correction of record which application was accepted‑‑‑Petitioner challenged order passed by Collector in Constitutional petition alleging that, Collector had assumed jurisdiction illegally‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Earlier decree passed ex parte having abated and having become nullity in eyes of law under S.2‑A of West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, proceedings regarding mutation would be decided by Revenue Court having jurisdiction to decide matter‑‑‑Petitioner had remedy of appeal against order passed by the District Collector.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Abdul Saleem for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Sharif for Respondent No.2. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order, dated 3‑4‑2001 of the Deputy Commissioner‑Collector, Gujrat.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Mehdi Shah filed an application under section 12(2) of the C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 26‑2‑1965 on the ground that the same is void and inoperative upon the right of the respondent. This application was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Gujrat vide his order, dated A 12‑1‑2000. The learned Civil Judge observed that the operation of the judgment and decree dated 26‑2‑1965 is abated under section 2‑A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law Shariat (Application) Act, 1962 as amended under Personal Lave (Shariat Application Act of the Punjab) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1983. Against this order the learned Additional District Judge Gujrat, accepted the revision petition on 23‑1‑2001. Meanwhile the respondent‑Mehdi Shah filed an application before the District Collector, Gujrat dated 26‑1‑2001, for correction of the record. The learned Collector passed the order dated 3‑4‑2001 which has been challenged by the petitioner before this Court in the instant writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that notwithstanding the dismissal of the application by the learned Civil Court on 18‑11‑2000, the Collector has assumed the jurisdiction illegally.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. filed by respondent Mehdi Shah before the learned Civil Judge for setting aside the judgment and decree being void and illegal, was not required as by assertion of section 2‑A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law Shariat (Application) Act, 1962 vide Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance, 1983 the judgment and decree dated 26‑2‑1965 is abated and has, therefore, become nullity in the eyes of law. He has argued that he shall not' press any proceedings before the learned District Judge arising out of the petition filed by Mehdi Shah respondent No.3.
5. Since the respondent shall not pursue the matter any further arising out of the proceedings of the application filed by respondent No.2 under section 12(2) of the C.P.C., therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that District Collector has assumed the jurisdiction in the presence of the order, dated 18‑11‑2000 of the learned Civil Judge, is not sustainable. The petitioner has a remedy to file an appeal or revision against the order, dated 3‑4‑2001 passed by the Collector. The decree dated 26‑2‑1965 has abated and has, become nullity in the eyes of law under section 2‑A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Shariat (Application) Act, 1962. In this view of matter, the proceeding regarding mutation shall be decided by Revenue Courts having the jurisdiction to decide the matter on application submitted by Mehdi Shah respondent No.2 dated 26‑1-2001 on the basis of which the order dated 3‑4‑2001 has been passed by Collector. The petitioner had the remedy of appeal against the impugned order, dated 3‑4‑2001 passed by the Collector. The parties may seek their remedy before the Revenue Authorities or Civil Court under the law.
6. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. H.B.T./S‑562/L Order accordingly.