1999 PLP 3395 (MLD)

(b) Void order

Validity

Void order creating legal consequences

Remedy

Affected party was required to get rid of such order in accordance with law. Chaudhry Muhammad Yaqoob Sindhu for Petitioner. C.M. Latif Rawn with Mian Ashfaq Ahmed for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th June, 1997 The petitioner is a vendee and calls in question the validity of the decree, dated 19-12-1987 decreeing the pre-emptor's suit, as confirmed on 14-3-1996 by the Appellate Court on the appeal of the respondent Amir Khan/Amid Khan.

2. On 30-7-1997, this revision was admitted as it was found that in terms of Said Kamal's case PLD 1986 SC 360. and Sardar Ali's case PLD 1988 SC 287 no decree could have been passed after 31-7-1986. In today's hearing this legal position has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent. He has, however, pointed out that the petitioner not only accepted the decree, dated 19-12-1987 by not filing an appeal against the same but further is respondent in the appeal in the District Court, agreed to the decree when he made a statement accepting the price of Rs.60,000 (rupees sixty thousands). Thereafter, the petitioner received the balance price on 26-5-1996 and the decree has further been executed and possession delivered to the successful pre-emptor. These facts have not been controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has, however, contended that the decree, dated 19-12-1987 is in conflict with the law declared by 'the Supreme Court of Pakistan and as such is void and that the petitioner can always turn around and call in question the void decree, notwithstanding the petitioner's conduct as well as the law of limitation.

3. The reply given by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not convincing. Even a void order so long as it remains in the field creates legal consequences, and the affected party is required to get rid of the same in accordance with law. The petitioner having accepted the decree by not filing an appeal and thereafter, having received the price from the Court on 16-5-1996 and having further delivered the possession cannot be permitted to turn around and call in question the decree. It will be seen that this revision was filed on 28-7-1996, after the receipt of sale price by the petitioner from the Court, on 26-5-1996. While it is true that under section 115, C.P.C. power of this Court to interfere is vast but it is equally true that it cannot be exercised in favour of a person who himself by his own conduct has accepted the decree and allowed himself to suffer the same. It is the word "may" that has been used in section 115, of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and in my judgment the conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him to take a U-Turn and to question the decree. In any case, this Court is not obliged to help him.

4. For the above reason, this revision is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./Z-46/L Petitioner dismissed.