2008 PLP 699 (SCMR)
NOOR AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus NAZAR HUSSAIN through L.Rs. and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 699 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ |
| Parties | NOOR AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus NAZAR HUSSAIN through L.Rs. and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 699 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 699 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 699 (SCMR) (NOOR AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus NAZAR HUSSAIN through L.Rs. and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- G.N. Gohar, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Rai Bashir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd September, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from judgment of Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench Bahawalpur, dated 19-6-2000 passed in Civil Revision No.192-D of 1981/BWP).
Ss. 42 & 54
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Suit for declaration and permanent . injunction
Concurrent finding of fact recorded by Trial Court, affirmed by Appellate Court and reaffirmed in revision by High Court
Case of respondent was that consent decree in earlier suit was obtained by fraud, collusion and misrepresentation
Contention of petitioners was that there was a valid compromise in earlier round of suit and impugned decree was legal and proper and it could not be struck down at the whims of respondent and that possession of land, in pursuance of transaction of sale, had throughout remained with petitioners
Since question of fact was not taken before forums below and no finding was available for or against it, Supreme Court declined to enter into such question, especially when Courts below had analysed and scanned evidence with care, caution and circumspection
Impugned judgments did not suffer from any inherent legal infirmity and no question of law of public importance was raised in petition
Petition was dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.
Petitioners are aggrieved by concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial Court, affirmed by the appellate Court and reaffirmed in civil revision by the Lahore High Court.
2. Respondent-Nazar Hussain filed a suit for declaration, setting aside consent decree, dated 5-2-1972 and permanent injunction against the petitioners way back in 1973. Essentially, it was the case of the respondent that the consent decree in the earlier suit was obtained by fraud, collusion and misrepresentation. Suit was hotly contested. Issues were struck. On assessment of the evidence, trial Court through judgment dated 31-3-1980 decreed the suit. An appeal was preferred against the judgment and decree, which was dismissed on 16-7-1981. Similar was the fate of civil revision preferred by the petitioners vide judgment, dated 19-6-2000, hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is vigorously contended that there was a valid compromise in the earlier round of the suit and the decree, dated 5-2-1972 was legal and proper and it could not be struck down at the whims of the respondent and that the possession of the land, in pursuance of the transaction of sale, has throughout remained with the petitioners. Learned counsel agitated that had the respondent acquired ownership and title to the land in suit, he would have been in physical possession of the suit-land, which has remained throughout with the petitioners. When called upon to explain from the record whether the question of possession was pleaded in the written statement and agitated at the trial of the suit, learned counsel was unable to make any positive statement. Indeed, he is constrained to admit that there was no issue on the question of possession and the issues settled at the trial were confined to the transaction of sale, validity or otherwise of consent decree and the mutation consequent upon the passing of the decree. Since the question of fact raised by the learned counsel was not' taken before the forums below and there is no finding for or against it, we are not inclined to enter into a disputed question of fact in the exercise of extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction. Suffice it to observe that the Courts below have analysed and scanned the evidence with care, caution and circumspection.
4. In our view, the impugned judgments do not suffer from any inherent legal infirmity and no question of law of public importance is raised in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused. H.B.T./N-36/SC Petition dismissed.