2002 PLP 250 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD SHAM and another ‑‑‑ Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR and 7 others ‑‑‑ Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 250 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAM and another ‑‑‑ Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR and 7 others ‑‑‑ Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 250 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 250 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 250 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD SHAM and another ‑‑‑ Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR and 7 others ‑‑‑ Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Aijaz Ahmad Chaudhry for Petitioners.
- Ch. Abdus Sattar for Respondent No.6.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 12‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2) & O. III, Rr. 1, 4‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199 ‑‑‑ Constitutional petition ‑‑‑ Suit for specific performance of contract ‑‑‑ Application for setting aside decree on allegation of fraud ‑‑‑ Parties, during the pendency of the suit, entered into a compromise and recorded their statements to that effect through their counsel and suit was decreed in terms of the compromise ‑‑‑ Plaintiffs filed application under S.12(2), C.P.C. for setting aside the decree on the ground that they had not authorized their counsel to make the statement‑‑ Said application was dismissed to the extent of five defendants, but was accepted to the extent of sixth defendant‑‑‑Revision filed against said judgment having been dismissed, Constitutional petition had been filed against judgment passed in revision‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Contention of plaintiffs/petitioners that they had not authorized their counsel to make statement was devoid of any force as their counsel was duly appointed and as such was authorized to make statement on their behalf‑‑ Concurrent judgments of Courts below arrived at after scrutiny of evidence on record and not suffering from any irregularity or material irregularity, could not be interfered with in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.
Judgment & Decree
The said application was resisted by the plaintiffs‑petitioners.
3. As a result of divergent pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues:‑‑‑ (1) Whether this petition is not competent in view of the preliminary Objection No.1 of the reply on behalf of the respondents/ plaintiffs? OPR (2) Whether the petitioners are estopped by their own words and conduct to bring this petition? OPR (3) Whether this petition is within time? OPA (4) Whether the judgment and decree, dated 9‑5‑1982 are based on fraud, misrepresentation, without legal authority, collusion and liable to be set aside on the grounds as contained in the instant petition? OPA (4‑A) Whether the decree, dated 9‑5‑1982 is liable to be set aside to the extent of land measuring 20 Kanals on the grounds asserted by the respondent No.6? OPR (5) Relief.
4. In support of their stand both the parties adduced evidence ands finally the said application was dismissed to the extent of defendants respondents Nos. l to 5 but was accepted to the extent of defendant‑respondent No.6 Mst. Sultan Bibi. The plaintiffs‑petitioners felt aggrieved of the said judgment and decree and filed revision petition and similarly a revision petition was also filed by the defendants‑respondents. Both the revisions came up for hearing before the District Judge, Bahawalnagar who dismissed the same vide order, dated 4‑1‑1989; hence, the instant writ petition.
5. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
6. The stand of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs‑petitioners is that they had not authorized their counsel to make statement and as such initial decree, dated 9‑5‑1982 is the result of fraud which has been practiced upon them; that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence which has been brought on record in support of their contention and as such the impugned orders suffer from misreading as well as non‑reading of evidence. He, thus, submitted that the writ petition be accepted and the impugned orders be set aside.
7. Conversely, the impugned orders have been supported by the learned counsel for the defendants‑respondents.
8. It is evident from the facts stated above that decree, dated 9‑5‑1982 had been passed on the basis of statements of the plaintiffs petitioners and defendants‑respondents through their counsel. The stand of the plaintiffs‑petitioners is that they had not authorized their counsel to make such statement. This contention is devoid of any force as their, counsel was duly appointed and as such was authorized to make statement on their behalf. It is on the basis of said authority that he made statement on their behalf. Consequently, the suit was decreed. Both the Courts below have scrutinized the evidence which had been brought on record by the respective parties and thereafter orders, dated 10‑2‑1988 as well as 4‑1‑1989 have been passed. The impugned orders as such do not suffer from any irregularity what to speak of material irregularity. Besides this factual position the instant writ petition is not maintainable even on legal score as order passed by the Revisional Court is not amenable, to writ jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on Dilshad v. Additional District Judge, Multan and others 1986 SCMR 1396, Msi. Zaidat v. Shahadat and others 1989 SCMR 1392 and Muhammad Khan and 6 others v. Mst. Ghulam Fatima and 12 others 1991 SCMR 970.
9. It may be mentioned here that the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Hasan Din v. Hafiz Abdus Salam and others PLD 1991 SC 65 to contend that the writ petition is maintainable against an order passed by a Revisional Court. There is no doubt that order passed by a Revisional Court has been held to be amenable to writ jurisdiction in the said authority. The facts of that authority are not identical to the facts in hand. In the said authority it was held that the District Judge had exercised jurisdiction which he did not possess. In the instant case the learned District Judge, Bahawalnagar had the jurisdiction to pass the order dated 4‑I‑1989. Thus, the said authority is not applicable to the facts in hand.
10. For what has been stated above it is proved that the impugned order dated 10‑2‑1988 as well as 4‑1‑1989 have been passed in accordance with law. There is no force in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed with costs. H.B.T./M‑816/L Petition dismissed.