| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2007 SLG 1606 2007 SLD 1606 2007 PLD 343 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.1783 of 2001, decision dated: 27-09-2006
FALAK SHER AND RAJA FAYYAZ AHMAD, JJ
Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Advocate Supreme Court, Dil Muhammad Tarrar, Advocate Supreme Court and Arshad Ali Ch. Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. Muhammad Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record.
Civil Appeal No.1783 of 2001, decision dated: 27-09-2006
FALAK SHER AND RAJA FAYYAZ AHMAD, JJ
Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Advocate Supreme Court, Dil Muhammad Tarrar, Advocate Supreme Court and Arshad Ali Ch. Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. Muhammad Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record.
FAZAL MEHDI and others
VS
ALLAH DITTA
Law:
Section:
(a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)--- ---S. 21---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.96(3), O.XXIII, R.3 & O.XLIII, R.1(m)---Consent decree---Effect---Trial Court allegedly recorded a consenting statement of vendee and decreed the suit in favour of pre-emptor---Judgment and decree passed by Trial Court was maintained by Lower Appellate Court as well as by High Court on the ground that appeal against consent decree was not maintainable, under S.96(3), C.P.C.---Plea raised by vendee was that consenting statement recorded by Trial Court was fake---Validity---Record was clear to the effect that no consent for passing of decree was made/given by vendee before Trial Court on any terms or as contained in the order sheet of Trial Court---Judgment and decree on the basis of fake consent was illegal and of no legal effect---Consent expressed and recorded by Trial Court was questioned and thus its validity made challengeable, therefore, the same was appealable, which appeal thus, to have been treated as an appeal under O.XLIII, R.1(m), C.P.C. and not a regular appeal filed under S.96, C.P.C.---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction did not attend to the grounds urged in memo of appeal germane to the matter whereby the very consent was challenged---High Court also failed to take notice of the provisions of O.XLIII, R.1, C.P.C., by treating the same as a regular appeal against a consent decree and consequently found the same to have been hit under S.96(3), C.P.C., hence non-suited vendee, which conclusion and consequent dismissal of revision petition could not be sustained---Consent purportedly given by vendee on the basis of which the decree was passed on the same date by Trial Court was found to have not open given by vendee and his appointed counsel---Decree passed on such basis was therefore set aside---Appeal was allowed. Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary, Law Department v. Malik Said Kamat Shah PLD 1986 SC 360; Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others PLD 1988 SC 287; Major Abdul Lateef and another v. Land Acquisition Collector-IV, Terbela Dam and 2 others PLD 1990 SC 849; Umer Din and another v. Muhammad Sadiq Hussain and 15 others…
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