1999 PLP 362 (CLC)
AJBAR KHAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SAID HAKIM KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1999 PLP 362 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J |
| Parties | AJBAR KHAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SAID HAKIM KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 362 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 362 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 362 (CLC) (AJBAR KHAN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SAID HAKIM KHAN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul Latif Afridi for Petitioners. Fateh Muhammad Khan for Respondents
- Date of hearing: 15th September, 1998.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 115, 96(3) & O. XXIII, R.3‑‑‑Consent decree‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Suit decreed by consent of parties‑‑‑Petitioners had no right to institute revision petition against such decree. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 115‑‑‑Revision‑‑‑Limitation‑‑‑Revision petition filed after 90 days from date of decree was barred by time. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 115‑‑‑Revision‑‑‑Petitioner had changed/tampered with dates given on certified copy of judgment‑‑‑Petitioners had not come to Court with clean hands‑‑‑Revision petition dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 115‑‑‑Revision‑‑‑Petitioner had changed/tampered with dates given on certified copy of judgment‑‑‑Petitioners had not come to Court with clean hands‑‑‑Revision petition dismissed in circumstances. Abdul Latif Afridi for Petitioners. Fateh Muhammad Khan for Respondents Date of hearing: 15th September, 1998. This revision petition has been directed against the judgment/decree, dated 17‑7‑1996 of the Additional District Judge/Izafi Zaila Qazi (Mr. Shah Jehan Khan) Sumar Bagh, District Dir.
2. Mr. Abdul Latif Khan Afridi, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Fateh Muhammad Khan, Advocate learned counsel for the respondents present and heard. Record of the case perused very carefully.
3. There is no need to give the brief history of the case because a perusal of the impugned judgment/decree would show that it is a consent decree and, therefore, the petitioners/defendants have no right, whatsoever, to institute this revision petition under the law.
4. Secondly, this revision petition is barred by time. The judgment/decree impugned was recorded on 17‑7‑1996 whereas the present revision petition was filed on 18‑2‑1997, far beyond the period of limitation i.e. 90 days.
5. Thirdly, the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands. They have tried to mislead the Court by tampering with the "dates" given on the certified copy of the impugned judgment so as to bring it "within time". Fortunately, the overwriting is so obvious that it could not escape the notice of the Court or be overlooked. In fact, this fact was also pointed out by the office as is clear from the office note dated 22‑2‑1997.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has been advised to direct his clients to refrain from such activities in future failing which they might be proceeded against in accordance with law.
7. This revision petition is frivolous and is accordingly dismissed with costs through out. Q.M.H./M.A.K./204/P Petition dismissed.