| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 578 2019 SLD 578 2019 YLR 825 |
Islamabad High Court
F.A.O. No. 115 of 2018, decided on 14-11-2018. Dates ofhearing: 6th, 7th and 9th November, 2018.
MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Muhammad Akram Sheikh and Natalya Kamal
Respondent(s) by: Khurram Mehmood Qureshi, Sheikh Muhammad Khizar-ur-Rasheed, Muhammad Ilyas Sheikh, Abdur Rasheed Awan, Haseeb Zahid, Javed Iqbal Wains
F.A.O. No. 115 of 2018, decided on 14-11-2018. Dates ofhearing: 6th, 7th and 9th November, 2018.
MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Muhammad Akram Sheikh and Natalya Kamal
Respondent(s) by: Khurram Mehmood Qureshi, Sheikh Muhammad Khizar-ur-Rasheed, Muhammad Ilyas Sheikh, Abdur Rasheed Awan, Haseeb Zahid, Javed Iqbal Wains
CH. MUHAMMAD JAMILVSCHAUDHARY MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND OTHERS
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2
Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Section: 52
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 52---Suit for declaration---Temporary injunction, grant of---Family settlement---Allegation of fraud---Effect---Question of fraud was not purely a question of law---Party alleging fraud was bound to prove the commission of fraud---Findings with regard to commission of fraud were to be based on cogent, unimpeachable and confidence inspiring evidence---Mere allegations of fraud could not partake proof required under the law---Fraud could not be presumed rather same must be proved as a positive act---Fraud alleged by the plaintiff to have been committed by the defendants was simple allegations and nothing more which had to be determined during course of the trial---Agreement entered into by fraud was voidable and not void---Person seeking to avoid an agreement on the ground of fraud had to be prompt in seeking redress---Agreement alleged to have been entered into by fraud did remain operative as long as it was not set aside, rescinded or recalled by a competent authority---Family settlement alleged by the plaintiff to have been based on fraud would remain operative until civil court after trial declared that said agreement was void on account of having been executed on the basis of fraud committed by the defendants---Plaintiff at this stage did not have a prima facie case for grant of an interim injunction---Trial Court had rightly exercised its discretion while dismissing application for interim injunction---Principle of lis pendens would apply to the pendente lite sale of the properties which were subject matter of the suit---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. Dr. A.B. Arora and others AIR 1933 Lah. 1024; Begum Shmas-un-Nisa v. Said Akbar Abbasi PLD 1982 SC 413; Ms. Alia Khalid v. Nazeer Ahmed 2005 SCMR 1273; Allah Dad v. Dhuman Khan 2005 SCMR 564; Irshad alias Abdul Rahim v. Ashiq Hussain PLD 2007 Kar. 421 and Muhammad Munawar Bajwa v. Mst. Zubera Shaheen 2004 CLC 441 rel. (b) Fraud--- ----Fraud vitiated all solemn acts and unravel everything. Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. Dr. A.B. Arora and others AIR 1933 Lah. 1024 rel.…
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