Case Details

Citation(s)
1991 SLD 1872 = 1991 CLC 1975
Sindh High Court
Suit No.1050 and C.MA. No.2789 of 1989, decided on 14th March, 1991.
Presented By: Before Mamoon Kazi, J
A. Aziz Khan for Plaintiff. Akhtar Mahmood for Defendant No.l Nemo for other Defendants.

MUHAMMAD ILYAS---Plaintiff

VERSUS

HAFIZ ABDUL MALIK and 2 others---Defendants

Law: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

Section: 15 , 22

  Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S. 15---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.191---Final order of ejectment passed by the Supreme Court-- Provisions of S.12(2) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, whether applicable for setting aside judgment of Supreme Court---Final order of ejectment having been passed by Supreme Court, provisions of S.12(2), Civil Procedure Code would not be applicable, for the Supreme Court was not governed by the provisions of Civil Procedure Code but by its own Rules framed under Art.191 of the Constitution-- Where provisions of S.12(2), Civil Procedure Code, 1908, could not be invoked before Supreme Court, plaintiff's suit challenging final order of ejectment on basis of fraud, misrepresentation etc. could not be deemed to be barred under such provisions---Bar imposed by provisions of S.12(2) . Civil Procedure Code 1908, in regard to filing of suit, would co-relate to the remedy provided by S.12(2) Civil Procedure Code 1908---Application under S. 12(2) for setting aside final order of ejectment thus, could not bye maintained in circumstances. Messrs Arokey Ltd. v. Munir Ahmed Mughal P L D 1982 SC 204; Muhammad Akhtar v. Abdul Hadi 1981 S C M R 878; Mir Salah-ud-Din v. Qazi Zaheer-ud-Din P L D 1988 SC 221; Ismail Brothers v. Kevalram P L D 1981 SC 545; Rehmatullah v. Ali Muhammad. and another 1983 S C M R 1064 and Asif Jah Siddiqui v. Government of Sindh P L D 1983 SC 46 ref: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S. 22---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.47---Execution of decree-- Question whether a decree was obtained by fraud or collusion was not one relating to the execution of decree but one which affected its very subsistence and validity---Such question could only be raised by a separate suit---Executing Court had no power to entertain an objection as to the validity of the decree upon the ground that same was obtained by fraud. Saifee Development Corporation Ltd. v. MA. Karim P L D 1974 Kar. 426 and SA. Latif v. Nadir Khan P L D 1969 Lah. 144 rel.     Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S. 15---Civil Procedure Code (V…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register