Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD DIN (deceased) through Mujahid Hussain Qasim and others VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD AMIN and others
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s):Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, Tanvir Ahmed
Khan Title:MUHAMMAD DIN (deceased) through Mujahid Hussain Qasim and others vs MUHAMMAD AMIN and others Case No.: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No, 1238/L of 1999 Date of Judgment:2002-05-30 Reported As: 2004 SCMR 1356 Result: Leave refused Judgment ORDER ' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 31- 5-1999 of the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Civil Revision No, 516 of 1984 filed by the petitioners was dismissed. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the decree, dated 26-7-1972 was fraudulently obtained by Muhammad Amin, respondent No,1 and according to him Rehmat Ali, predecessor-ininterest of the respondents, never appeared before the Court, therefore, for such reason the petitioners filed a suit on 5-12-1977 after the death of said Rehmat Ali who died on 26-2- 1976. According to him, the learned First Appellate Court as well the learned High Court without having attended to this aspect of the case had dismissed their suit. We are not inclined to accept the above contentions of the learned counsel because a perusal of the judgments delivered by the Courts below indicates that the decree, dated 26-7-1972 was passed in presence of said Rehmat Ali as this fact had been testified by Messrs Abdul Hamid, Shah and Mian Tariq Advocates who appeared as D.Ws. A before the trial Court. The learned trial Court after having taken into consideration the fact of their evidence concluded that the decree. Dated 26-7-1972 was validly passed. Such, finding has been maintained by the Appellate Court as well as by the High Court. It may be noted that Rehmat Ali did not challenge the said decree during his life time therefore, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment being unexceptionable admits no interference by this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and .