Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petitions Nos. 317 and 318 of 1985, decided on 13th November, 1985.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court at Lahore, dated 26‑1‑1985 passed in Civil Revision No. 126/1) of 1985).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2) & O.VII, R. 11‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Finding of High Court, that suit of petitioner before trial Court even otherwise was barred under'S.12(2), Civil Procedure Code, unexceptionable‑‑Petition also liable to be dismissed on account of suppression of fact by petitioner about a renew petition dismissed earlier by Supreme Court‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Mian Nisar Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbooi Ahmed Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 13th November, 1985.
This order will dispose of the above two petitions for leave to appeal No. 317 and 318 of 1985 which are directed against two identical orders passed by the learned Lahore High‑Court dismissing two revision applications involving similar facts and grounds.
2. The petitioner brought a suit in the Court of civil Judge Second Class, Chunian, District Kasur asking for a declaration that a compromise entered into by the defendants/ respondents in this Court in a case arising out of Mukhbari proceedings against the allotment of Rehmat Khan was inconsequential qua the rights of the petitioner in the disputed land as he was not a party before the Supreme Court. The plaint was rejected by the trial Court under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. The petitioner's appeal against the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 6‑1‑1985 and his revision petition challenging the above orders also failed as per judgment impugned herein.
3. We have gone through the orders passed in the case as also the order of this Court recording the compromise.
4. The learned High Court rightly declined to interfere in the case on the ground that even otherwise the suit of the petitioner was barred l under subsection (2) of section 12, C.P.C. This finding isl unexceptionable. The petition is also liable to be dismissed on account of suppression of facts because the petitioner has not mentioned that the order of this Court recording the compromise, dated 13‑8‑1983 was challenged by him by means of a Civil Review Petition No. 10‑R of 1984 before this Court which was dismissed on 20‑5‑1984. Such fact was brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the caveator/ respondents.
5. For the reasons mentioned above the petition is without merit and is accordingly dismissed.
M . Y . H . Petitions dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer