Case Details

Citation(s)
1982 SLG 355 1982 SLD 355 1982 SCMR 494
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1982 in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 335 of 1981, decision dated: 18-01-1982.
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN ACTG. C.J., MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH AND M.S.H. QURESHI, JJ
Ch. Muhammad Hasan, Advocate Supreme Court with Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Sh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record, Ch. Khalilur Rehman, Advocate and M. Aslam, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Nemo for Re

Mst. SAFIA BIBI

VS

Mst. AISHA BIBI

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)­---S. 2(2)-Bar to further suit-Order of High Court passed in writ petition alleged to be based on fraud and misrepresentation-Held, to be challenged by application before High Court and not by separate suit-High Court required to hold enquiry and adjudicate matter. Muhammad Akhtar's case 1981 S C M R 878 ref. (b) Practice and procedure- Mention of wrong provision of law in application-Held, would not deprive Court of power and jurisdiction otherwise available under law. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)- Art. 204 and Contempt of Courts Act (LXIV of 1926), S. 6­Contempt proceedings-Entire discretion of Court whether, or not to proceed against alleged contemner. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal was sought in this matter from judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 21-1-1981 whereby an application for review and recall of order dated 26-10-1980 on the ground that it was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation, was dismissed, with the observation that the High Court was "not inclined to hold enquiry into this question" and further that the petitioner could "take legal action against her attorney and resort to appropriate legal action for redress of her grievance". 2. Mst. Aisha Bibi, respondent No. 1; had instituted a constitutional petition (No. 1588-R of 1976) in the High Court against the petitioner and a Settlement authority, as respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively therein. It came up for hearing and was disposed of by a learned Single Judge on 26th of October, 1980 with the following short order :- "Both the counsel submit that the parties have compromised. In view of this no further order is required in this writ petition which is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs." 3. On 2-12-1980 the petitioner moved an application in the High Court with the assertion that in reality there was no compromise and that Abdul Khaliq (respondent No. 3 herein) representing himself to be her general attorney engaged a counsel and "without any authority" represented that there was an agreement between the parties while in fact there was none. Thus on account of this misrepresentation, the writ petition was…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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