1985 PLP 1272 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ and another‑‑Petitioners Versus ATTA MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1272 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ and another‑‑Petitioners Versus ATTA MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1272 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1272 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and M.S.H. Quraishi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1272 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ and another‑‑Petitioners Versus ATTA MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Iftikhar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.A. Qureshi. Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st August, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 23‑11‑1980 passed in Civil Revision No. 1914 of 1980). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O. XXVIII, r.3 O.XIII, r.5‑‑Frivolous and vexatious petition‑‑Awarding costs‑‑Petitioners having agitated transfer of disputed property in favour of respondents and failed thrice, finally upto Supreme Court‑‑Petitioner again filing civil suit to challenge same transfer alleging for first time fraud, forgery and misrepresentation and coming upto Supreme Court‑‑Held: Resort to civil action for reopening matter finally decided upto level of highest Court in country was not proper even on a new ground of fraud, which though available, was not taken before Authorities in earlier grounds‑‑Frivolous and vexatious suit compelling other party to defend itself‑‑Petition dismissed‑‑Petitioners ordered to pay Rs. 4,000 in gross in lieu of taxed costs awarded to respondents. Abdul Majid v. Abdul Ghafoor Khan P L D 1982 S C 146 and Asif Jah Siddiqi v. Government of Sind P L D 1983 S C 46 rel.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O. XXVIII, r.3 O.XIII, r.5‑‑Frivolous and vexatious petition‑‑Awarding costs‑‑Petitioners having agitated transfer of disputed property in favour of respondents and failed thrice, finally upto Supreme Court‑‑Petitioner again filing civil suit to challenge same transfer alleging for first time fraud, forgery and misrepresentation and coming upto Supreme Court‑‑Held: Resort to civil action for reopening matter finally decided upto level of highest Court in country was not proper even on a new ground of fraud, which though available, was not taken before Authorities in earlier grounds‑‑Frivolous and vexatious suit compelling other party to defend itself‑‑Petition dismissed‑‑Petitioners ordered to pay Rs. 4,000 in gross in lieu of taxed costs awarded to respondents. Abdul Majid v. Abdul Ghafoor Khan P L D 1982 S C 146 and Asif Jah Siddiqi v. Government of Sind P L D 1983 S C 46 rel. Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Iftikhar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.A. Qureshi. Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st August, 1984. M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.‑‑ The history of the case shows that Noor Din, predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners, had agitated the transfer of the disputed property in favour of the contesting respondents in as many as three rounds of litigation, the last one having come right upto this Court. Having failed throughout, the petitioners filed civil suit to challenge the same transfer order on the ground that it had been obtained by fraud, forgery and misrepresentation. In this round, too, they failed as their plaint was rejected and so was their appeal and revision. The High Court observed that neither Noor Din nor, after his death in 1964, the present petitioners, who had pursued the litigation, had asserted fraud before the Settlement authorities.
2. In view of the repeated pronouncements by this Court (see Abdul Majid v. Abdul Ghafoor Khan P L D 1982 S C 146 and Asif Jah Siddiqi v. Government of Sind P L D 1983 S C 46 resort to civil action for re‑opening the matter finally decided upto the level of the highest Court in the country was not proper even on a new ground of fraud which ground had been available but not taken before the Settlement authorities in the earlier grounds. The suit was thus frivolous and vexatious and had compelled the other party to defend itself and now to file a caveat before this Court. We are, therefore, of the view that it will just and fair to burden the petitioners with costs under Order XXVIII, rule 3 read with Order XIII, rule 5 of this Court's Rules. Wed accordingly, while dismissing the petition for leave to appeal, award Rs. 4,000 in gross in lieu of taxed costs which amount on recovery shall be paid to the respondents. M.I. Petition dismissed.