| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1997 SLG 399 1997 SLD 399 1997 PLD 300 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petitions Nos. 65 and 66-Q of 1996, decision dated: 15-01-1997. (On appeal from the judgment of High Court of Balochistan dated 11-7-1996 passed in C. Ps. 188 and 189 of 1996 respectively).
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN, JEHANGIRI, JJ
Basharatullah, Advocate Supreme Court .(in C.P. No. 65-Q of 1996). H. Shakeel Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and K.W.N. Kholi, Advocate-on-Record Nos. 1 to 14 (in C.P. No. 65-Q of 1996). Basharatulleh, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.P. No. 66-Q of 1996).
Civil Petitions Nos. 65 and 66-Q of 1996, decision dated: 15-01-1997. (On appeal from the judgment of High Court of Balochistan dated 11-7-1996 passed in C. Ps. 188 and 189 of 1996 respectively).
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN, JEHANGIRI, JJ
Basharatullah, Advocate Supreme Court .(in C.P. No. 65-Q of 1996). H. Shakeel Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and K.W.N. Kholi, Advocate-on-Record Nos. 1 to 14 (in C.P. No. 65-Q of 1996). Basharatulleh, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.P. No. 66-Q of 1996).
BAZ MUHAMMAD and others
VS
Mst. ZELEKHA and others
Law:
Section:
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)------S. 12(2)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Ex parte decree challenged by respondents on ground of fraud and misrepresentation---Ex parte decree in favour of petitioners was maintained up to High Court---Leave to appeal was refused by Supreme Court---Respondents being not party to that suit filed application under S.12(2), C.P.C. before Trial Court for recalling ex parte and decree on the ground that same was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation---Trial Court dismissed such application but Appellate Court allowed the same and directed Trial Court to proceed with application of respondent under S.12(2), C.P.C. in accordance with law---Such order was affirmed by High Court ---Validity---Petitioners claimed that matter in question, having been concluded by order of Supreme Court in earlier round of litigation, refusing leave to appeal, application under -S.12(2), C.P.C. could either be filed before Supreme Court or the High Court which had dealt with the case in its revisional jurisdiction and that Trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain application under S.12(2), C.P.C.---Contention raised by petitioners required further examination---Leave to appeal was granted in circumstances. Mubarik Ali v.. Pazal Muhammad PLD 1995 SC 564 and Abdul Majid's case PLD 1982 SC 146 ref. ORDER SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioners are seeking leave to appeal against the order of a learned Division Bench of Balochistan High Court dated 11-7-1996 whereby two Constitution Petitions Nos.188 and 189 of 1996 filed by the petitioners were dismissed. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the petitions are as follows. The petitioners instituted Civil Suit No.84/1989 against one Habibullah son of Mirza Khan, Malik Sher Muhammad and Tehsildar, Quetta, seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendants in suit, in respect of land measuring 26 rods 39 pols, situated in Khasra No.260 Kahtooni No.3463 Mouza Chushma Belleli, Tehsil and District Quetta hereinafter to be referred as 'the suit land'. The trial Court decreed the suit ex parte in favour of petitioners on 17-3-1992 and appeal against the ex…
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