Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: Const. P. 210/2024 (SHC)
Court / Jurisdiction: Sindh High Court
Petitioner: Const. P. 210/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit Court, Mirpur Khas - Ashique Ali (Petitioner)
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as Const. P. 210/2024 (SHC). In this matter between Const. P. 210/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit Court, Mirpur Khas - Ashique Ali (Petitioner) and the Respondent, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: Const. P. 210/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit Court, Mirpur Khas CITATION: 2024 SHC MPK 793 PARTIES: Ashique Ali (Petitioner) ORDER DATE: 26-SEP-24 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT MIRPURKHAS
Civil Revision Application No. S-210 of 2024 (Old No.S-193/2019/Hyderabad) (Moula Bux & others Vs. Province of Sindh & others)
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
Date of hearing and order 26.09.2024
Mr. Muhammad Zainuddin Baloch, advocate for the applicants. Mr. Ayaz Ali Rajpar, Additional A.G Sindh. = ORDER Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, J. The applicants have filed this Civil Revision Application against the order dated 21.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge -II, (MCAC) Sanghar, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.07/2016 (Re-Moula Bux Vs. Province of Sindh & others), whereby, the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal of applicants and maintained the order dated:06.08.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge Sangahr, whereby he dismissed the execution application No. Nil of 2018 ( Re- Moula Bux & others Vs. Province of Sindh & others). 2. The facts, in a nutshell, are that each applicants/plaintiffs were allotted 16-00 acres out of U/A No.1, Deh Sadrat -4, Taluka & District Sanghar, as per Land Grant Policy, survey of said land was carried out and survey numbers 2846 to 2967 were formed out, such sketch was prepared and entry of each survey number of each plaintiff was made in Form-A, thereafter, water for suit land was sanctioned. All of a sudden applicants/plaintiffs came to know about the order of respondent/defendant No.2 regarding cancellation of Ghat - Wadh Forms and fresh measurement, hence the plaintiffs/ applicants have filed suit before the trial Court against the official defendants as well as 33 numbers of respondents/private defendants, said suit was dismissed by the trial court and the applicants/plaintiffs have filed Civil Appeal No.54/2013 and in the above ap peal compromise application U/O XXIII rule 3 CPC r/w sec. 151 CPC was filed jointly by applicants/plaintiffs and private respondents No.8, 9, 22 to 14, 16 to 30, 32 to 41 , and accordingly Civil Appeal No.54/2013 was ended with a compromise decree. The comp romise took place between private parties and Government respondents were bye -passed, though there
2
was Government interest/property was involved in the matter. After the compromise decree dated 19 -02-2005 the applicants (120 in number) filed an Execution A pplication against the Member Board of Revenue, Director Settlement Survey , and other officials, though the above -mentioned government respondents were not a party in the said compromise decree dated 19 -02-2015. The trial Court vide order dated 06 -08-2016 dismissed the Execution application filed by the applicants for the reason that (1) the decree holders have to seek execution of the decree from the Court who passed the decree on compromise application and (2) the compromise decree was passed between the private parties and the decree holders seeks relief against Government respondents which is against the law ; hence, the applicants have filed the Civil Appeal No: 07 of 2016 , which too, was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, (MCAC) Sanghar with the following reasoning: - POINT NO.1 8. From the perusal of material placed on record as well as I have gone through the record and proceedings of the learned trial Court, it appears that Plaintiff/applicants have filed a civil suit against Government defendants as well as private defendants challenging the orders of defendant No.2 regarding the cancellation of Ghat -Wadh Forms in respect of plaintiffs/ applicants and fresh measurement. The trial Court dismissed the said suit of plaintiffs/applicants and the applicants/plaintiffs have filed Civil Appeal No.54/2013 before the appellant Court and before the appellate Court (2 nd Additional District Court Sanghar) in C.a. No.54/2013, a compromise application U/O XXIII rule 3 CPC r /w sec. 151 CPC was filed jointly by applicants/plaintiffs and private respondents No.8, 9, 22 to 14, 16 to 30, 32 to 41. The Government respondents were not a party in the compromise; accordingly, Civil Appeal No.54/2013 was ended with a compromise decree dated 19-02-2015. 9). Since the Government respondents were not part of the compromise though there was Government interest/property involved in the matter, therefore, the compromise between private in respect of Government property/interest is defec tive and illegal and after such an ineffective compromise decree dated 19 -02-2005 filing of Execution Application by the applicants (120 in numbers) against the Member Board of Revenue, Director Settlement Survey and other officials is frivolous, hence, th e trial Court through the impugned order has rightly observed that the compromise decree was passed between the private parties and seeking execution of such decree against Government respondents is against the law. 10) The upshot of above discussion i s that as per the discussed reasons the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is proper and legal in accordance with law. The trial Court did not commit any illegality or any irregularity as such, the same does not require interference of this C ourt. Under such circumstances point No.1 is answered in affirmative. POINT NO.2 11). In view of my findings on point No:1, the impugned order dated 06-08-2016 is hereby maintained. Resultantly, the appeal in hand stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
3
3. The learned counsel for the applicant s has argued that the orders passed by the lower courts are challenged as being contrary to law, fac ts, equity, and natural justice; that t he appellate court's order is criticized for blindly endorsing the trial court's decision wit hout proper legal justification; that the lower courts erred in holding that an execution application could be filed where a compromise was r eached between the parties; that the courts wrongly concluded that the compromise wa s between private parties and thus execution against government officials was improper. It's argued that government officials are bound to comply with court orders, r egardless of their party status; that t he lower courts failed to consider that the compromise decree attained finality due to lack of objections or ap peals from government officials; that t he executing court cannot question the validity of a decree but must execute it according to its terms; that t he suit property was mentioned in the plaint an d proceedings; that t he lower courts failed to provide suffici ent reasons for their decisions; that t he orders suffer from patent illegalities; that t he courts misinterpreted facts and law, lead ing to a miscarriage of justice; that t he courts acted illegal ly a nd with material irregularities; that t he orders are without lawful auth ority and should be struck down; that t he orders unjustly deprive the applicants of their legal rights; that the orders disregard established legal principles. 4. The learned AAG a rgued that the compromise decree was defective and illegal because it involved government property without the government's participation. The trial court rightly agreed and dismissed the applicants' subsequent execution application against government officials. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, finding that the compromise decree was invalid and that the execution application was frivolous. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties present in court and perused the record with their assistance. 6. The applicants (plaintiffs) filed a civil suit against the government and private respondent/defendants challenging the cancellation of their Ghat - Wadh forms and the subsequent re -measurement. The trial court dismissed the suit. The applicants appealed to the appellate court, where they reached a compromise with certain private respondents but not with the government.
4
7. The courts below have consisten tly found against the applicant s’ claims, and these decisions should not be overtu rned in a revision proceedings unless extraordinary circumstances exist. A revision court does not re-examine evidence like an appellate court. 8. Based on the foregoing, the findings of the courts below are not jurisdictionally flawed and do not show any misreading or non -reading of evidence that could have led to a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the revision application is without merit and is dismissed. Each party will bear their costs. 9. These are the reason s for my short order even date, whereby, the Revision Application is dismissed.
JUDGE
“Ali Sher”