Case ID |
2e61c8ad-6940-429d-9061-03c0b7c9b549 |
Body |
View case body. Login to View |
Case Number |
Writ Petition No. 10336 of 2010 |
Decision Date |
Jul 29, 2015 |
Hearing Date |
Jul 29, 2015 |
Decision |
The Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Sher Baz Khan and others, upholding the decisions of the lower courts. The court found that the petitioners lacked locus standi to file the application under Section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, as the predecessor in interest, Muhammad Nawaz, did not object to the decree during his lifetime. Additionally, the petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence of fraud or illegality to warrant the setting aside of the consent decree. The High Court emphasized the limited scope of constitutional petitions when lower courts have made concurrent findings against the petitioners. Consequently, the petition was dismissed without any order as to costs. |
Summary |
In the landmark case of Writ Petition No. 10336 of 2010, adjudicated by the Lahore High Court on July 29, 2015, the court addressed pivotal issues surrounding the application of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and the scope of constitutional petitions in the context of concurrent judicial findings. The petitioners, Sher Baz Khan and others, represented by advocate Muhammad Anwar, sought to overturn a compromise decree dated January 9, 1989, which had been upheld by both the trial court and the Additional District Judge. The central contention revolved around the alleged lack of locus standi and the purported existence of fraud in the execution of the compromise.
Justice Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi meticulously examined the procedural nuances, emphasizing that the legal heirs of Muhammad Nawaz, who was alive until 1997 and had neither objected to the decree nor filed an application under Section 12(2) of the CPC during his lifetime, lacked the standing to challenge the decree posthumously. The court underscored the necessity for petitioners to provide concrete evidence of fraud or procedural irregularities to successfully set aside a consent decree, highlighting that vague or unsupported allegations hold no legal weight.
The High Court also delved into the limitations of constitutional petitions, particularly when lower courts have rendered concurrent and adverse decisions against the petitioners. Drawing on an extensive array of precedents, including Sheikh Muhammad Sadiq v. Elahi Bakhsh and others (2006 SCMR 12) and Muhammad Nawaz alias Nawaz and others v. Member Judicial Board of Revenue and others (2014 SCMR 914), the court reiterated that constitutional petitions cannot override the determinations of subordinate courts unless there is unequivocal evidence of gross illegality, jurisdictional defects, or blatant misinterpretations of evidence.
Furthermore, the case shed light on the intricate interplay between various legislative frameworks. The Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) and the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, were scrutinized to determine the validity of the land transfer agreement under Section 19. The court maintained that the consent decree, in this instance, did not constitute a sale deed as per the legal definitions and was not in violation of the aforementioned statutes, thereby upholding the actions taken by the lower courts.
The decision also highlighted the procedural lapses on the part of the petitioners, notably the absence of a request for condonation of delay despite the ten-year lapse since the decree was passed. The court referenced cases like Muhammad Mahmood Saeed and others v. Mehdi Hassan Shah and others (2015 CLC 307) and Fida Hussain v. Ghulam Sarwar (2002 SCMR 1554) to reinforce the principle that statutory limitations are rigorously enforced unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.
In conclusion, the Lahore High Court's dismissal of the writ petition reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to upholding procedural integrity and ensuring that legal remedies are sought with due diligence and substantiated claims. The judgment serves as a critical reference point for future litigations involving the setting aside of decrees and the grounds requisite for challenging judicial decisions through constitutional petitions. By meticulously dissecting the petitioners' arguments and reinforcing established legal doctrines, the court has provided clarity on the boundaries of legal standing and the substantive requirements for contesting judicial decrees, thereby contributing significantly to the jurisprudential landscape. |
Court |
Lahore High Court
|
Entities Involved |
Muhammad Anwar,
Additional District Judge,
Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi,
Sher Baz Khan,
M. R. Fakhar Baloch
|
Judges |
Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi, Justice
|
Lawyers |
Muhammad Anwar,
M. R. Fakhar Baloch
|
Petitioners |
others,
Sher Baz Khan
|
Respondents |
3 others,
Additional District Judge
|
Citations |
2016 SLD 2171,
2016 YLR 452
|
Other Citations |
Abdul Jabbar and others v. Mst. Maqbool Jan and others 2012 SCMR 947,
Ghulam Nabi and others v. Seth Muhammad Yaqub and others PLD 1983 SC 344,
Muhammad Saleem v. Muhammad Tariq 2009 CLC 1295,
Javed Iqbal v. Abdul Aziz and another PLD 2006 SC 66,
Sheikh Muhammad Sadiq v. Elahi Bakhsh and 2 others 2006 SCMR 12,
Muhammad Nawaz alias Nawaz and others v. Member Judicial Board of Revenue and others 2014 SCMR 914,
Khuram Shafi v. Mst. Inayat Bibi and others 2005 SCMR 766,
Ilahi Bakhsh v. Sheikh Muhammad Sadiq and 2 others 2005 CLC 1704,
Fazal Hussain Shah through Legal Heirs and others v. Rustam through Legal Heirs 2010 YLR 297,
Sardar Din v. Mst. Khatoon and others 2004 SCMR 1102,
Jam Hussain Shah and others v. Additional District Judge and others 2014 YLR 749,
Ameer Umar and another v. Additional District Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan and others 2010 SCMR 780,
Sultan Ahmad and others v. Mehr Din and others 1994 MLD 1671,
Muhammad Yar and another v. Allah Ditta and others 2008 CLC 795,
Commissioner Multan Division, Multan and others v. Muhammad Hussain and others 2015 SCMR 58,
Mrs. Alia Khalid and others v. Nazir Ahmad and others 2005 SCMR 1273,
Muhammad Hanif through Legal Representatives v. Province of Punjab through District Collector, Vehari and others 2005 YLR 3331,
Gul Sher and 5 others v. Province of Punjab through E.D.O.R Toba Tek Singh and 8 others 2008 YLR 2277,
Allah Bakhsh and 10 others v. Abdul Rahim and 23 others 2005 CLC 1643,
Mst. Mehr Bhari and 5 others v. Province of Punjab through Collector Chakwal and another 2003 YLR 603,
Muhammad Razzaq v. Faqir Hussain and another 2010 CLC 170,
Mrs. Sher Bano v. Kamil Muhammad Khan PLD 2012 Sindh 293,
Muhammad Anwar v. Muhammad Aslam and others 2012 SCMR 345,
Syed Arif Ali Sabri v. Abdul Samad through L.Rs. and 2 others 2008 YLR 2309,
Subedar Sardar Khan through legal heirs and others v. Muhammad Idrees through General Attorney and others PLD 2008 SC 591,
Messrs Lanvin Traders, Karachi v. Presiding Officer, Banking Court No.2, Karachi and others 2013 SCMR 1419 rel.,
Muhammad Ashraf v. Kashif Iqbal through Mst. Fakhar-un-Nisa and another 2014 MLD 109,
Raja Muhammad Arshad v. Raja Rabnawaz 2015 SCMR 615,
Sh. Abdur Rashid v. Sh. Mubarak Ali and others 1994 CLC 1617,
Nanjegowda and another v. Gangamma and others 2012 SCMR 1246,
Hafiz Muhammad Sharaf-Ud-Din v. District Judge, Khushab and others 2015 MLD 1081,
Manzar Shah alias Manzar Hussain Naqvi v. Ch. Shafquat Hussain and 2 others 2015 YLR 595,
Sadruddin v. Aslam Madad Ali and others PLD 2008 Kar. 2005 rel.,
Javaid Iqbal v. Abdul Aziz and another PLD 2006 SC 66,
Sh. Abdur Rashid v. Sh. Mubarak Ali etc. (1994 CLC 1617),
Nanjegowda and another v. Gangamma and others (2012 SCMR 1246),
Abdul Jabbar and others v. Mst. Maqbool Jan and others (2012 SCMR 947)
|
Laws Involved |
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
Constitution of Pakistan,
Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882),
Limitation Act (IX of 1908),
Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912
|
Sections |
S. 12(2),
Art. 199,
S. 54,
Art. 181,
Section 19
|