| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2003 SLG 919 2003 SLD 919 2003 SCMR 604 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 102, 754 and 755 of 2000, decided on 28th October, 2002. (On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 23-2-2000 passed in Civil Revisions Nos. 457 and 381 of 1986)
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI AND FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, JJ
Ch. Khurshid Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in Civil Appeal No. 102 of 2000). Malik M. Rafique Rijwana, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in Civil Appeals Nos.
Civil Appeals Nos. 102, 754 and 755 of 2000, decided on 28th October, 2002. (On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 23-2-2000 passed in Civil Revisions Nos. 457 and 381 of 1986)
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI AND FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, JJ
Ch. Khurshid Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in Civil Appeal No. 102 of 2000). Malik M. Rafique Rijwana, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in Civil Appeals Nos.
ZULFIQAR ALI and others
VS
MUHAMMAD AKBAR KHAN and others
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.XXIII,R.3
Law: Limitation Act, 1908
Section: 5
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 185
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XXIII, R.3---Dispute as to property---Consent decree passed against the owner of the property was collusive and fraudulent---Effect---Every subsequent transaction based on such decree was also of no legal consequence against the ownership of the property of the person against whom such decree was, passed and he continued to be the owner of the property. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art.185---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5---Appeal to Supreme Court was barred by 73 days---Application for condonation of delay---Sufficient ground---Explanation given in the application for condonation was that the certified copies of the documents issued by the High Court for filing the appeal were dim and the said delay was caused because better copies were to be prepared to tile them before the Supreme Court as the Supreme Court usually did not accept dim copies---Validity--Such could not be held to be a good ground much less sufficient ground recognized by law for condonation of delay---Each and every day's delay was to be explained which had not been done in the present case---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. JUDGMENT MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---By this common judgment, we propose to decide Civil Appeals Nos. 102, 754 and 755 of 2000 which have been directed against the same consolidated judgment passed in Civil Revisions Nos.457 and 381 of 1986. 2. The property in dispute was admittedly owned by Muhammad Akbar Khan, respondent No. 1. His case as made out in the present suit from which these appeals have arisen was that he gave blank papers and Wakalatnama signed by him to his counsel for institution of some judicial proceedings which were taken back by his step-brother Khurshid Ali Khan who got filed a suit against him on behalf of other step-brother Salahuddin in which the said papers and Wakalatnama were used to obtain collusive and fraudulent consent decree on the consenting statement of Asghar Ali Khan as his attorney which being fraudulent transaction, as such, the same did not adversely affect his ownership tights in the property. A prayer for recovery of possession of land was also made. The case of the…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492