Estoppel

The principle of estoppel prevents the litigant from raising an inconsistent thing in subsequently instituted proceedings; he cannot blow hot and cold at the same time

The approbation and reprobation is not permissible in legal proceedings, therefore, the litigant cannot deviate, from his previous stance

Civil revision, being merit-less, was dismissed.

Claim of the petitioners was that his deceased brother died issueless and daughter (respondent No.2) was born out of the second marriage of wife (respondent No.1) of his deceased brother

Validity

Question of the parentage of respondent No.2 was never raised by the petitioners in the earlier suit instituted by respondent No.1 for recovery of dower against the petitioners etc., thus, petitioners by their conduct were estopped to question the parentage of respondent No.2

Not a single witness was produced by the petitioners to establish that respondent No.2 was born as a result of second marriage of respondent No.1

Evidence in the shape of school and NADRA record also revealed that the date of birth of respondent No.2 was recorded as 1997, whereas respondent No.1 contracted second marriage in the year 2005 and there was no rebuttal to that effect from petitioners' side

In the absence of any convincing and cogent evidence, the oral assertion of petitioners was not a valid and acceptable ground that respondent No.2 was not the daughter of the deceased brother of petitioners

Inheritance mutation was attested in 1999, whereas, suit was instituted by petitioners in 2016 i.e. after more than 17 years without giving any convincing justification, especially when respondent No.1 also claimed her dower through earlier suit in 2005

Not only the question of limitation was involved in the case, but petitioners through acquiescence had also weakened their stance while claiming the inheritance of their deceased brother

Petitioners failed to point out any flaw in the concurrent judgments of courts below

Revision petition was dismissed.

A party cannot participate in proceedings or hold its peace while awaiting a potential favourable outcome and then, upon an adverse ruling, opportunistically challenge the very jurisdiction it had tacitly affirmed.

When a party takes an inconsistent position in the same case or in a prior case, the principle of judicial estoppel should be applied

Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel a Court can stop a party from taking up contradictory stances if it is clearly inconsistent with the previous position.

Principle of promissory estoppel restrains a public authority from resiling from a position that has been consciously adopted and acted upon by affected persons, unless an overriding public interest so demands and such departure is sanctioned by law.

Petitioners filed a time barred application under S.12(2), C.P.C., after more than 04 decades, which was dismissed by the Trial Court, whereafter civil revision was filed by the respondent, which was accepted while remanding the application back to the Trial Court for decision afresh on merits after framing of issues

Validity

Once consent judgment/decree/order, as the case may be, has been passed by a competent court of law, then the parties cannot resile from it without any cogent and valid reasons

Consent decree operates as estoppel by judgment

When a person raises the ground of fraud or concealment to allege his claim or defend his stance, the same has to be specifically pleaded with clear particulars, which in the present case were not detailed by the respondents in their application

Framing of issues in an application under S.12(2), C.P.C., depends on the circumstances of each case, nature of alleged fraud and the decree so, obtained

Framing of issues in every case to examine the merits of the application would certainly frustrate the very purpose and object of S.12(2), C.P.C., which is to avoid protracted and time consuming litigation in order to save the genuine decree holder from grave hardships, ordeal of further litigation, extra burden on their exchequer and simultaneously to reduce unnecessary burden on the courts below

Respondents had filed the application under S.12(2), CPC, after more than four long decades and that too without mentioning any specific date of knowledge therein, which was not maintainable being barred by law in terms of Art.181 of the Limitation Act, 1908

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Admission becomes conclusive and binding when acted upon by other party and operates as estoppel, precluding retraction by maker

Scope and limitations

Although admission of facts are only relevant and are not conclusive proof of the matters made through said admission, however, such admissions become conclusive and are binding on a party making them only if it amounts to a representation on a matter of fact made to the other party, who in consequence of such representation has altered its position

When admission is thus acted upon by the party to whom it is made, it operates as estoppel and becomes in a way conclusive, inasmuch as the party making it is not then permitted to show that the admission.

Locus standi of deceased's brother to challenge judgment of acquittal in circumstances where legal heirs of deceased entered into a compromise with the accused

Estoppel

Scope

Accused was convicted and sentenced to death by the Trial Court

During the pendency of his appeal before the High Court, legal heirs of the deceased (widow and a minor) entered into a compromise with the accused, on the basis whereof, he was acquitted of the charge through the impugned judgment

Validity

Under the injunctions of Quran and Sunnah, and under section 309 PPC, only an adult sane Wali (legal heirs) may at any time waive their right of Qisas without any compensation or may compound his/their right of Qisas on accepting badal-i-Sulh (compensation) as provided by section 310 PPC.

No doubt, the petitioner (complainant) who was brother of the deceased, informant of the FIR as well as a complainant in the private complaint, could challenge the impugned judgment of acquittal being an aggrieved person, but the legal heirs of the deceased did not want to pursue the matter further against the respondent

If the legal heirs of the deceased did not wish to pursue the matter, the petitioner had no authority to undermine their right guaranteed by law

Permitting the petitioner to pursue the matter would amount to promoting frivolous litigation

Petitioner had not been able to show that the right of compounding the offence exercised by the legal heirs was a result of coercion, duress or undue pressure

Thus, under such circumstances, the petitioner was estopped under the law to challenge the impugned judgment (of acquittal) before the Supreme Court

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

There can be no estoppel against a statute or rules having statutory force.

Party cannot go beyond pleadings as facts mentioned in pleadings would constitute estoppel within the meaning of Art. 114 Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

Execution of gift mutation of entire estate by grandfather of the petitioners in favour of one son excluding his others sons

Locus standi of petitioners to file suit when their fathers, being the deprived sons, did not challenge the transaction in their lifetime and petitioners being legal heirs of the deprived sons also remained silent for a long time

Contention of the petitioners was that their grandfather had died before execution of the gift deed, therefore, their fathers were deprived fraudulently of their legacy

Validity

Fathers/predecessors of the petitioners were aware of the gift mutation in favour of their fourth brother but they did not challenge the same despite the fact that they remained alive for many years after the attestation of mutation

If a transaction was not challenged by the father in his lifetime despite having its knowledge, then his sons, after his death, will lack locus standi to challenge the same on behalf of their deprived father

Petitioners had not denied the knowledge of their fathers about the gift mutation

After the death of donee (benefited son) his legacy was transferred to his sons, which fact was also in the knowledge of the petitioners, but they remained silent for 34 years and filed the suit after a considerable long time, which not only constituted estoppel and waiver on the part of the petitioners, but also exposed them before law of limitation

A stale claim under the law of limitation cannot be enforced legally as the passage of time sets the law of limitation in operation and there can be no exception unless the relaxation is granted by the Limitation Act, 1908, by itself

Petitioners had failed to establish through evidence that the grand predecessor died prior to execution of the gift mutation

Petitioners of the instant petition were proforma defendants before the Trial Court and they were placed and proceeded against ex parte and after passing of the judgment and decree by the Trial Court they joined proceeding at appellate stage but did not file any appeal or application for setting aside decree, which was ex parte to their extent, before the Trial Court, which fact also estopped them to challenge the decree of Trial Court

Civil Revisions were dismissed accordingly.

Appellants, who held positions as Advocate General, Additional Advocate General, and Assistant Advocate General, filed a writ petition before the High Court as a result of which their pay and privileges were adjusted to match those of their counterparts in another province due to a judgment by the High Court and the Supreme Court's refusal to grant leave to appeal

However, the government enacted the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Law Officers (Terms and Conditions) Act, 2014 (I of 2015) to nullify the impact of these judgments, resulting in discriminatory terms, conditions, pay, and perks

Appellants sought a declaration that Sections 7(1), 7(2), 10 & 11 of the Act were unconstitutional and requested that the respondents be instructed to grant them equal pay, perks, and privileges as equal to their counterparts

High Court, while maintaining the provisions of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Law Officers (Terms and Conditions) Act, 2014 (I of 2015) ('the Act'), directed the government to amend the notification regarding the perks and privileges of law officers in line with the principles outlined in the aforementioned judgments

Validity

Appellants were appointed in 2016 for a three-year period in accordance with the Act

Section 7 of the Act outlines the pay and allowances applicable to the Law Officers

Subsection (2) of this section states that a Law Officer appointed shall be considered to have accepted the aforementioned terms and conditions, including pay, allowances, etc., and shall not be eligible for any enhancements or different terms and conditions

Having accepted these terms and conditions, the appellants continued to fulfill their duties and completed the initial term of their appointment

Although their tenure ended in 2019, they were instructed to continue working until further notice

When a change in government was imminent, the appellants filed a writ petition challenging the provisions of the Act

However, their writ petition was severely affected by the principle of laches, as they had accepted the terms and conditions of their service under the statutory provisions while simultaneously challenging them

Therefore, their conduct amounted to acquiescence to the terms and conditions stated in their appointment notifications, thereby estopping them from filing the writ petition

Appeal was dismissed.

Petitioner assailed the appointment of private respondent on disabled persons' quota and sought a direction for his appointment instead of private respondent's

Validity

Private respondent had earlier applied against different posts while declaring himself to be medically fit

Law of estoppel did not allow the private respondent to alter his position that he suffered from disability

Estoppel was an equitable doctrine, a bar that prevented one from asserting a claim or right that contradicted what one had said or done before, or what had been legally established as true

Private respondent could not take advantage of his own inconsistent positions

So far as locus standi of the petitioner was concerned, two posts were allocated for the persons with disability and the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 3 of the Merit List, therefore, he was an aggrieved person within the meaning of Art. 199 of the Constitution

Constitutional petition was allowed.

There can be no estoppel against law.

For the applicability of the doctrine of judicial estoppel, three conditions are required to be satisfied: (i) the party's later position must be clearly inconsistent with its earlier position; (ii) whether the first Court had accepted the earlier position; and (iii) whether the party seeking to assert an inconsistent position would derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party if not estopped

Nevertheless, the two crucial conditions are the first and the third

If they are met, even if the second condition is unsatisfied, still the doctrine of judicial estoppel would apply.

Estoppel is a collective name given to a bunch of legal doctrines whereby a person is prevented from making assertions, which are contradictory to his prior position on certain matters before the Court.

Petitioner assailed the judgment and decree whereby the respondent's suit for possession along with recovery of mesne profits was decreed and the petitioner's suit for specific performance of oral agreement to sell regarding the same suit property was dismissed

Contention of petitioner was that the respondent's suit was not maintainable before the Civil Court rather the same was triable on revenue side

Validity

Petitioner by filing a suit for specific performance of contract had himself denied his status of a tenant

Similarly, in the suit for possession, he reiterated his position to be the owner of the suit land rather than holding that under the landlord

Petitioner, under the principle of estoppel, was estopped from claiming that Revenue Court was required to decide the eviction suit against him under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887

Even otherwise, the tenancy between the parties had long extinguished, but the petitioner neither had got the period of his tenancy extended nor had he vacated the possession of the suit land, therefore, his possession over the suit land could not be better than that of an illegal occupant

As regards recovery of mesne profits, Appellate Court had rightly observed that since the petitioner's claim of oral agreement could not be proved and he had been in possession over the suit land without paying even a single penny, therefore, he was directed to pay a certain amount, which was equivalent to the last paid lease money, as mesne profit along with 10% annual mark-up

Revision petition was dismissed.

No estoppel operates against the law or the Constitution.

When a civil servant acknowledges his offer letter and joins the service, he is bound by the terms and conditions highlighted in the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the rules framed thereunder, therefore, law of estoppel applies, which precludes the civil servant to challenge the provisions of law, especially when S. 13 has already been considered on the touchstone of Holy Quran and Sunnah by the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court in the judgment reported as "Pakistan and others v. Public-at-Large" [PLD 1987 Supreme Court 304].

When a civil servant acknowledges his offer letter and joins the service, he is bound by the terms and conditions highlighted in the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the rules framed thereunder, therefore, law of estoppel applies, which precludes the civil servant to challenge the provisions of law, especially when S. 13 has already been considered on the touchstone of Holy Quran and Sunnah by the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court in the judgment reported as "Pakistan and others v. Public-at-Large" [PLD 1987 Supreme Court 304].

Appellant objected to the respondents' suit, based on a Foreign Judgment, arguing that the respondents were obligated to provide the original judgment or a certified copy, accompanied by a certificate from a notary public or a Pakistan Consul, in accordance with Arts. 89(5) & 96(1) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Validity

Mode adopted by the respondents to prove the Foreign Judgment did not meet the requirements of these Articles and they had submitted a photocopy of the Foreign Judgment with their suit

Surprisingly, the appellant had not raised any objection during the hearing regarding the authenticity of the copy

In fact, this very judgment had been filed by the appellant in her previous suits

By submitting copies of the Foreign Judgment in Courts of Pakistan, the appellant had effectively admitted its existence and contents

Therefore, the factum of the judgment's existence and contents was considered to be admitted and did not require further proof

In her written statement, the appellant had not denied the Foreign Judgment's existence but had argued that the trial before the Foreign Court lacked compliance with natural justice

Appellant was estopped in terms of Art. 114 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 from resisting the enforcement of the judgment

Appeal was dismissed with costs.

Petitioners assailed concurrent orders of courts below whereby the respondent's application under S. 144, C.P.C., was allowed

Validity

Petitioners had got share of their mother from the legacy of their maternal grandfather on the strength of judgments/decree of courts below which were set aside by the Chief Court on a technical ground

Petitioners were entitled to retain the suit property till disposal of their suit

Respondent had earlier filed an application for restitution/possession under S.47, C.P.C., which was unconditionally withdrawn, hence, he was estopped by his conduct and admission to file fresh petition for restitution/possession of suit land

Revision petition was allowed and the impugned orders were set aside.

Article 114 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 defines the doctrine of estoppel under which when a person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative to deny the truth of that thing

Said principle is founded on equity and justness with the objective to prevent fraud and ensure justice

Though it is described as a rule of evidence but may have effect of constituting substantive rights.

Respondent filed an application for execution of the judgment and decree against the petitioner and his brothers being successors of their late father

Petitioner also filed an application in the executing court with the prayer that he might be allowed to submit an amount of Rs. 20,000/ per month as monthly installments

Application filed by petitioner was allowed

Once again petitioner filed an application claiming therein that decretal amount ought to have been paid by the petitioner and his brothers i.e. all sons of the judgment-debtor but the execution proceedings were pending only against him

Application filed by petitioner was dismissed

Validity

Held; contention of petitioner that he was not aware of the consequences of agreement and liability imposed upon him in terms of payment of decretal amount for himself and rest of the judgment-debtors, was a lame excuse on petitioner's part for the simple reason that he had not only agreed to make payment of the entire decretal amount before the Court, but had also filed an affidavit in that behalf

Order passed by executing court was based on good grounds of law and facts

Revision petition was dismissed.

Conduct of a person to operate as estoppel has to involve some kind of express or implied representation, which might have led another person to change his position to his disadvantage by believing the representation made to him as correct

Such is one of the essential elements of estoppel by conduct that the party against whom it is pleaded should have made some representation intended to induce a course of conduct by a party to whom it was made.

Petitioners could only be ejected through Courts so established under the provisions of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Tenancy Act, 1950

Petitioners were estopped under provisions of Art. 115 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, to deny title of respondents, who could not have approached Civil Courts under S.8 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, for redressal of their grievance, instead they had rightly approached Courts established under Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Tenancy Act, 1950

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction declined to interfere in judgments and decrees passed by Courts below as there was no illegality in the same

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Contention of appellant was that entering into an agreement as well as after having received amount of compensation struck therein, the respondent was left with no locus standi to retreat from his act to step ahead for institution of reference under S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Contention of respondent was that the agreement was forcibly executed

Validity

Bare reading of proviso to subsection (2) of S. 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1897 revealed that the Act did not provide any particular mode, manner and method of protest by a claimant at the time of receipt of amount of compensation, awarded under S. 11, hence, the protest could be made either in writing or through reference under S.18

Section 31(4) clearly demonstrated that for payment of compensation of acquired land to interested party, only Collector concerned was competent to execute any contract while in the case in hand, the agreement was executed between the respondent and an Army official who was not competent to execute the same

Requirement of making agreement with the Collector was a mandatory requirement

Appeal, being devoid of merit, was dismissed.

Doctrine of estoppel enacted in Art.114 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, is, in fact, an equitable doctrine, a rule of exclusion, which implies that if a person has by act or omission altered his position, he will be estopped and be precluded or debarred from denying it or take a position so as to alter his position to the determinant of the other person/the opposite party and prevents the litigant from raising inconsistent plea(s) in judicial proceedings by disallowing the litigant from blowing hot and cold at the same time.

Appellate Court directed the plaintiff to pay a certain amount as enhanced consideration amount within 30 days failing which the appeal filed by defendant would be deemed to have been accepted

Plaintiff filed an application before the Appellate Court seeking permission to deposit the enhanced consideration with certain delay, which application was dismissed

Meanwhile, defendant had filed a revision petition before the High Court

Plaintiff intentionally concealed the dismissal of his application and filed cross-objection before the High Court

Validity

Plaintiff had voluntarily and expressly showed his willingness to pay the decretal amount which amounted to an admission of his liability

Admission, even implied, by a party, before the court during the judicial proceedings had to be given sanctity while applying the principle of estoppel as well as to respect moral and ethical rules and if retraction therefrom was allowed as a matter of right, then it would definitely result into distrust of the public litigants over the judiciary and would damage the sacred image of the courts that they were not capable to implement the orders passed by them in the judicial proceedings

Any such admission even implied or statement given before the court of law would operate as legal estoppel and estoppel by conduct against a party making such admission or giving such a statement or understanding

Dismissal of plaintiff's application had created legal right in favour of defendant

Plaintiff could not have assailed the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court before the High Court

Cross-objection was dismissed

Appeal filed by defendant before Appellate Court was deemed to have been accepted

Revision petition was dismissed being infructuous.

Doctrine of estoppel means a disability where a party is precluded from alleging or proving in legal proceedings that a fact is otherwise than it has been made to appear by the matter giving rise to such disability.

Petitioner's case was that he was entitled to the grant of pensionary benefits as he had rendered thirty three years long standing service as confirmed employee, whereas stance of authorities was that the petitioner was not eligible for grant of pensionary benefits as his appointment was made against working capital

Validity

Petitioner after accepting the terms and conditions of his confirmed employment had submitted his joining report and was well aware about the fact that he was being appointed against a working capital and his salary and other benefits including pensionary benefits would be drawn out of the working capital

Petitioner's acknowledgement of his confirmation letter explicitly revealed that the same was accepted without any protest or objection, meaning thereby that the petitioner had accepted his confirmation in service with his free will and consent and had also received emoluments there-against, as such nothing was left to be claimed by him qua his pensionary benefits

Petitioner's case was hit by principle of estoppel

No element of mala fide on the part of department was shown by the petitioner towards refusing of pensionary benefits

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Held, though acquiescence is a specie of estoppel but there can be no estoppel against law.

Petitioner claimed that he was a State Subject of Azad Jammu and Kashmir; that he was serving as contingent paid Cleaner BPS-2 in WAPDA (Water and Power Development Authority); that he was entitled to seek employment in the light of 20% quota reserved for the children of employees of WAPDA and that the WAPDA while issuing the advertisement regarding appointment against the vacancies of Cleaners had violated the office memorandum dealing with the provisions of quota, as such, the respondents be ordered to determine the quota of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and local citizens be given preference

Validity

Office memorandum dealt with two propositions, one is that appointment against the posts in BPS 1 to 5, would be made on local basis and secondly, province and region wise quota for the children of employees against the posts of BPS 6 to 14 had been allocated

Petitioner could not rely upon the office memorandum, however, he could claim his appointment on local basis for BPS 1 to 5

Since the petitioner was a contingent paid employee, therefore, if he felt persuaded that his grievance might be redressed then forum in terms of Industrial Relations Act, 2012 or in the shape of writ under Art. 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan might be available to him

Petitioner had also applied for the post under challenge, hence, by his conduct he was estopped from filing the petition in hand

Writ petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

If a party against whom the acquiescence and estoppel is pleaded was aware about the dents pointed out by the other party and even then it participated in the process without raising any objection then in case of adverse order, such party cannot take inconsistent position.

As a rule of evidence estoppel could be invoked by a party, however, the same could not be accepted against the statutory obligation of a person even though one party might not have expressly claimed his right which was available to him under the law

Doctrine of estoppel did not apply against a statute and it had no application when statutory rights and liabilities were involved

If a person had been bestowed some legal right by law/statute and he omitted to claim such legal right for a certain period of time, it did not mean that he had waived his legal right and subsequently he could not claim such right.

Where Government controlled functionaries made a promise which ensued a right to anyone who believed in it and acted under the same, then such functionaries were precluded from acting detrimental to the rights of such person/citizen.

Where Government controlled functionaries made a promise which ensued a right to anyone who believed in it and acted under the same, then such functionaries were precluded from acting detrimental to the rights of such person/citizen.

As a rule of evidence estoppel could be invoked by a party, however, the same could not be accepted against the statutory obligation of a person even though one party might not have expressly claimed his right which was available to him under the law

Doctrine of estoppel did not apply against a statute and it had no application when statutory rights and liabilities were involved

If a person had been bestowed some legal right by law/statute and he omitted to claim such legal right for a certain period of time, it did not mean that he had waived his legal right and subsequently he could not claim such right.

Plaintiff customer's suit against defendant Bank was rejected by Banking Court under provisions of O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.

Validity

Through said suit, plaintiff only attempted to reopen a previous case, where suit for recovery had been filed by Bank against the present plaintiff, in which he actively participated and which culminated in issuance of sales certificate for mortgaged property in his name, and such order of Banking Court was never challenged by plaintiff in appeal

Plaintiff, therefore was estopped by his conduct from instituting a recovery suit against defendant Bank and plaint was therefore rightly rejected by Banking Court under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners contended that respondents all of sudden had enhanced their fee as against mentioned/introduced in their prospectus

Held, that impugned fee was being paid by the petitioners right from the date of its enhancement

Thus the petitioners were estopped by their own conduct to challenge the validity of the fee through constitutional petition

Constitutional petition dismissed.

Petitioners impugned advertisement whereby the condition of professional qualifications qua appointment against teaching cadre posts was done away with and instead an in-service training in the relevant subject was held to be mandatory for the incumbents

Participation of petitioners in the impugned process of selection amounted to acquiescence on their part debarring them to approach the High Court through constitutional petition

No case for the issuance of the writ asked for was made out

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Petitioners impugned advertisement whereby the condition of professional qualifications qua appointment against teaching cadre posts was done away with and instead an in-service training in the relevant subject was held to be mandatory for the incumbents

Validity

Petitioners could not pinpoint any element of mala fide or legal incompetence of the respondents in amending the recruitment rules on the basis of which impugned advertisement was floated

Executive authorities had the prerogative to frame policy or amend rules in accordance with the exigencies of service to cope up with the ever changing requirements and the court could not substitute its views in the decision of the Government with regard to the policy matters unless it ran counter to the mandate of the Constitution

Earlier, there were instances when the candidates claiming professional qualifications were duly appointed on the basis of educational certificates but then in several cases such certificates turned out to be fake and bogus being not issued by proper institutes and the incumbents were then terminated from service even after putting up service for a couple of years and even more

Present system of giving in-service training to the fresh appointees through a properly organized and duly recognized training institutes of the Government had in fact allayed the possibility of appointment of candidates on the basis of bogus and fake certificates

Petitioners had participated in the test but had failed to qualify the same, such action on their part amounted to estoppel

No case for issuance of the writ asked for was made out

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

If a person knowingly does not come forward for ejectment of the illegal occupant within the limitation, he cannot succeed beyond limitation and would not be in position to cross the legal estoppel.

Party is estopped by his own conduct if he knowingly allows any person to cause damage to his right leading to inference that such happening was in true direction.

Petitioners assailed the judgments and decrees passed by courts below whereby respondent's suit for possession was decreed

Validity

Suit of the respondent was time barred besides he was also estopped from filing the suit on account of his lethargic act and admittedly the property had never remained in his possession before and after the process of consolidation

Respondent during the process of consolidation was shown as co-owner in the khata but he had filed the suit showing himself as exclusive owner of his portion of land

Besides he had never come forward to claim possession of the property from any occupant except the petitioners who proved their possession on the property for more than twelve years at that time and at such belated stage he tried to eject the petitioners by bringing the lis; even before that other persons had remained occupants of the suit land

Respondent's suit suffered from legal impediment of limitation and estoppel

Revision petition was allowed and the suit was dismissed, in circumstances.

Evidence of highest order is required to uphold the plea of estoppel or waiver.

Question of estoppel is a mixed question of law and fact.

No estoppel against law.

Rule of estoppel prevents a person from saying inconsistent things in successive actions and prevents a party from saying anything which would contradict his own previous act.

Plaintiff had initially, in the year 2001, approached the High Court (Lahore) for regularization of his contractual service in the employer Corporation, however, subsequently he had abandoned his claim

Plaintiff was estopped from agitating his same claim in the present case

Principle of acquiescence and waiver was attracted

Plaintiff had consciously given up his right to seek permanent absorption and/or seeking any benefit of permanent employment in the Corporation on the basis of his past contractual service while accepting new contract

Suit was dismissed, in circumstances.