1987 PLP 2046 (SCMR)

Laws Cited

Representation

• M. Farani, Barrister‑at‑law, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
• Rana Abdur Rahim, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
• Date of hearing: 7th March, 1987.
• ‑‑‑Ss. 115, 114 & O.XLVII, R.1‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Suit for pre‑ emption‑‑Advocate of plaintiff‑respondents making application to Trial Court for withdrawal of suit on ground that parties had entered into compromise‑‑Trial Court accordingly dismissing suit as withdrawn‑‑Respondents on coming to know about dismissal of suit, filing application for review of dismissal order on ground that they had not given any instructions to said Advocate to withdraw the suit and that order of dismissal had been obtained from Court by practising fraud‑‑Trial Court in accepting review petition holding that order of dismissal had been obtained by practising fraud and restoring suit‑‑District Judge on appeal setting aside order of Trial Court but High Court in revision restoring same‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine contentions that Advocate of respondents had the authority to enter into compromise and withdraw the suit and thus there was no basis for the Courts to hold that a fraud had been committed on the Court.
• 2. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum and Mst. Tasleem‑un‑Nisa Begun filed a suit for pre‑emption in a civil Court at Dera Ghazi Khan. They were represented by Malik Naseem Ahmad, Advocate. In due course issues were framed and the proceedings were adjourned to 20‑9‑1972 for recording evidence of the parties. However, on 5‑7‑1972 an application was filed by Malik Naseem Ahmad for the withdrawal of the suit on the ground that the parties had entered into compromise. The learned trial Court recorded the statement of Malik Naseem Ahmad and dismissed the suit as withdrawn. ,
• 3. One Basit Ali used to pursue the case on behalf of Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum and Mst. Tasleem‑un‑Nisa Begum. He appeared in the Court on 20‑9‑1972 which was the date originally fixed for recording evidence of the parties and found that the case had not been shown in the cause list. According to him he made inquiries from Malik Naseem Ahmad, Advocate, about the fate of the case. Malik Naseem Ahmad told him that the file had been misplaced and for that reason it had not appeared in the cause list. A few days later, he came to know the circumstances in which the suit had been dismissed. On 3‑10‑1972 the two women filed an application under section 114 and rule I of Order XLVII‑of the Code of Civil Procedure for review of the order of 5‑7‑1972 by which the suit was dismissed. Their case was that they had not given any instruction to Malik Naseem Ahmad to withdraw the suit and that the statement made by him in this regard was without authority. They further alleged that the order of dismissal had been obtained by practising fraud on the Court. This application was resisted by the petitioners. After considering the evidence led by the parties the learned trial Court held that the order of dismissal had been obtained from the Court by practising fraud. Accordingly, it set aside the impugned order and restored the suit. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge who set aside the order of the trial Court. The two women then filed a revision petition in the High Court. By a detailed order a learned Single Judge in the High Court accepted the revision petition, set aside the order of the Additional District Judge and restored that of the learned trial Court. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal from this Court.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree