1994 PLP 365 (SCMR)
Mst. JAMILA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD TAHIR and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 365 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. JAMILA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD TAHIR and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 365 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 365 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry and Wali Muhammad Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 365 (SCMR) (Mst. JAMILA‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD TAHIR and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Waris Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th April, 1993.
- We have heard Mr. Waris Khan, Advocate, for the petitioner, and have perused the record of the case.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated. 16‑1‑1993 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed in C.R. No. 427 of 1992). ‑‑‑‑O.IX, R.6, Ss.12(2) & 47‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑ Stay of execution proceedings pending adjudication of application under S. 12(2), Civil Procedure Code, 1908‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Two successive mutations of sale in respect of house in question‑‑‑Earlier mutation challenged by petitioner and ex parte decree was passed in his favour‑‑‑Subsequent transferee was not a party in said suit for transfer in his favour had taken place lis pendens‑‑‑Subsequent transferee challenging ex parte decree on grounds of fraud and collusion and getting stay of execution proceedings with regard to ex parte decree‑‑‑Order of stay of execution was set aside by Appellate Court but maintained by High Court‑‑‑Legality‑‑‑Ex parte decree of which execution was sought, being under challenge before Trial Court on ground of fraud and collusion and matter being sub judice, Trial Court had properly exercised its discretion in maintaining status quo; Appellate Court without substantial reasons set it at naught while the High Court correctly restored Trial Court's order‑‑‑No legal error was found in the judgment of High Court whereby it restored status quo order as passed by the Trial Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Waris Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th April, 1993. WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.‑‑‑Mst. Jamila, petitioner herein, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 16‑1‑1993 of the Peshawar High Court, whereby Revision Petition No.427/92 filed by Muhammad Tahir respondent against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Swabi dated 5‑9‑1992, was accepted. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the petitioner was owner of the suit house who allegedly sold the same vide Mutation No.5448 attested on 28‑12‑1989 in favour of Fazl‑e‑Rabbi, respondent No.2 herein, who further alienated the same vide Mutation No.5485 attested on 18‑4‑1990 in favour of Muhammad Tahir, respondent No.l herein. The first mutation was challenged by the petitioner and ex parte decree dated 28‑1‑1991 was passed in her favour. The subsequent transferee; namely, Muhammad Tahir was not a party in the said case as the transfer in his favour admittedly took place lis pendens. He filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. challenging the decree on the ground of fraud and suppression of facts and simultaneously with the same filed an application for the stay of execution ‑proceedings which was hotly contested and after hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties the trial Court, by accepting the application, ordered stay of execution proceedings vide its order dated 17‑5‑1992. The appellate Court, however, did not concur with it and vide order dated 5‑9‑1992 annulled the same. The respondent Muhammad Tahir preferred a revision petition against it before the High Court which was accepted through the impugned order and by setting aside the judgment of the appellate Court, the order of the trial Court was restored with direction to it to decide the application filed by Muhammad Tahir respondent on priority basis. Hence the instant petition for leave to appeal. We have heard Mr. Waris Khan, Advocate, for the petitioner, and have perused the record of the case. As stated above, the ex parte decree of which the execution is sought is under challenge before the trial Court on the ground of fraud and collusion and the matter being sub judice, the trial Court had properly exercised its discretion in maintaining status quo, and the appellate Court without substantial reasons set it at naught. We do not find any legal error in the impugned judgment of the revisional Court. Resultantly, finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. A.A./J‑102/S Leave refused.