Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NOOR DIN VS Respondent: ABDUL KARIMHonorable Justice Muhammad Afzal ZullahFazal Miran Chauhan, Advocate Supreme Court,Nemo
1991 S C M R 1499
1991 S C M R 1499
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ
NOOR DIN and others‑‑‑Petitioners
versus
ABDUL KARIM and others‑‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition No. 382 of 1981, decided on 20th July, 1988. (Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 6‑12‑1980 in C.R. 1820‑D of 1980).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Suit for declaration filed by petitioners on ground that decree obtained by respondents side was result of collusion with the other respondent, was finally dismissed upto High Court‑‑‑Petitioners relying on judgment of Magistrate, contended that petitioners had succeeded in establishing in Criminal Court that fraud had been committed, so much so that Advocate who was involved in alleged fraud was accused in the case, had made a confessional statement and was accordingly convicted and let off on probation though other accused had absconded‑‑‑Petitioners contended that judgment of Magistrate would come in conflict with judgment impugned in case if High Court's judgment was not set aside and case remanded for trial on merits‑‑‑Leave was granted in circumstances and records of both the cases, civil and criminal, were summoned and notice was also issued to counsel involved in the alleged fraud.
Fazal Miran Chauhan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 20th July, 1988.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiffs side in a suit for declaration, against the dismissal of their Civil Revision by the High Court. The petitioners' case was that a decree obtained by the respondents side was the result of collusion with respondent No.2. Their evidence was closed under Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. and the suit r was dismissed. This decision having been upheld in appeal and revision, the r ` petitioners have now sought leave to appeal.
Learned counsel, while relying on the judgment of a Magistrate 1st Class dated 9‑9‑1986, contended that the petitioners have succeeded in establishing in the Criminal Court that a fraud had been committed: So much so that an Advocate who was involved in the alleged fraud and was an accused in that case, made a confessional statement. He was accordingly convicted and let off on probation though the other accused had absconded. According to him, the said judgment would come i7 conflict with the judgment impugned in this case, if the High Court's judgment is not set aside and the case remanded for trial on merits. In addition, the learned counsel has argued the points raised in this petition.
After hearing him we consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. Order accordingly.
Security Rs. 5,000.
Records of both the cases; civil and criminal shall be summoned. If the criminal case is under appeal or revision, the record thereof be procured only at the time when the appeal arising out of this petition, is due for final hearing.
Notice in this case shall also issue to Munir Ahmad, Advocate, District Courts. Lahore, resident of Maula Bakhsh Road, Lahore.
H.B.T./N‑179/S Leave granted.