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 Miscellaneous No. 862 of 1986 in Civil Revision No 472 of 1985 decided on 21st May, 1986.
‑‑‑Ss. 115 b 151‑‑Petitioner, in compliance with order of Court furnished security for mesne profits within time‑‑Respondent alongwith his application in which he requested that revision petition be heard at early date, filed false affidavit alleging that petitioner had not furnished security for mesne profit‑‑No special reasons having been assigned by applicant for early hearing of revision petition and averment made in affidavit about non‑compliance of order of Court by petitioner being incorrect, High Court not only dismissed application of respondent, but also issued show‑cause notice to him for filing false affidavit.
M. Aftab Iqbal Chaudhry for Petitioners.
Ziauddin Ahmad Qamar and Syed Sardar Shah Bokhari for Respondent.
Reply to the application has been filed.
In this application the applicant‑respondent has made two prayers: one that the main revision petition be directed to be heard at early date, and in the alternative that the petitioners in the revision petition be directed to deposit the mesne profits in cash in the trial Court. The basis of the alternative prayer is that the petitioners have failed to furnish the security for the mesne profits as directed by this Court by order dated 12‑10‑1985.
In the reply filed it has been categorically averred that the security was furnished before the trial Court on 19‑10‑1985 i.e. within seven days of the passing of the order, by this Court although the period allowed for furnishing security was one month from the date of order,
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the applicant‑respondent, has filed an affidavit alongwith this application wherein it has been alleged that the petitioners have not furnished the security as was directed by the Court which obviously is an incorrect averment in the light of reply filed today. He has also drawn may attention to the certified copy of the security furnished by the petitioners before the trial Court and which is annexed with the reply.
Having considered the matter I think that this application is laible to be dismissed. There is no special reason assigned why the hearing of the main revision petition be accelerated and the alternative prayer made is also without merit in that the basis therefore, has been demolished by the reply filed by the petitioners. From the above it also emerges prima‑facie that the applicant‑respondent has filed a false affidavit in this Court in support of his application. That being so, while dismissing this application I direct that a show‑cause notice be issued to the applicant‑respondent to show cause why he should not be proceeded against for having filed a false affidavit in this Court, Office to issue notice.
H.B.T./A‑12/L Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer