1986 PLP 1700 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD YASIN KHAN — Petitioner Versus REHMAT KHAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1700 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and S. A. Nusrat, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YASIN KHAN — Petitioner Versus REHMAT KHAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1700 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1700 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and S. A. Nusrat, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1700 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD YASIN KHAN — Petitioner Versus REHMAT KHAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Nisar Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbooi Ahmed Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 13th November, 1985.
- Mian Nisar Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbooi Ahmed Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court at Lahore, dated 26-1-1985 passed in Civil Revision No. 126/1) of 1985).
Art. 185(3)--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2) & O.VII, R. 11--Petition for leave to appeal--Finding of High Court, that suit of petitioner before trial Court even otherwise was barred under'S.12(2), Civil Procedure Code, unexceptionable--Petition also liable to be dismissed on account of suppression of fact by petitioner about a renew petition dismissed earlier by Supreme Court--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
S.A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑This order will dispose of the above two petitions for leave to appeal No. 317 and 318 of 1985 which are directed against two identical orders passed by the learned Lahore High‑Court dismissing two revision applications involving similar facts and grounds. 2. The petitioner brought a suit in the Court of civil Judge Second Class, Chunian, District Kasur asking for a declaration that a compromise entered into by the defendants/ respondents in this Court in a case arising out of Mukhbari proceedings against the allotment of Rehmat Khan was inconsequential qua the rights of the petitioner in the disputed land as he was not a party before the Supreme Court. The plaint was rejected by the trial Court under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. The petitioner's appeal against the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 6‑1‑1985 and his revision petition challenging the above orders also failed as per judgment impugned herein. 3. We have gone through the orders passed in the case as also the order of this Court recording the compromise. 4. The learned High Court rightly declined to interfere in the case on the ground that even otherwise the suit of the petitioner was barred l under subsection (2) of section 12, C.P.C. This finding isl unexceptionable. The petition is also liable to be dismissed on account of suppression of facts because the petitioner has not mentioned that the order of this Court recording the compromise, dated 13‑8‑1983 was challenged by him by means of a Civil Review Petition No. 10‑R of 1984 before this Court which was dismissed on 20‑5‑1984. Such fact was brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the caveator/ respondents. 5. For the reasons mentioned above the petition is without merit and is accordingly dismissed. M . Y . H .?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Petitions dismissed.