MUHAMMAD AKHTAR vs NIAZ AHMAD Ss — 2022 YLR 1803 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD AKHTAR VS NIAZ AHMAD Ss. 12(2), 151 & O. XLI, R. 21---Pre-emption---Maxim "a man who seeks equity must come with clean hands"---Grant of permission to re-deposit pre-emption amount---Suit for possession filed by respondent/pre-emptor (deceased) was concurrently decreed---Petitioners/ defendants filed revision petition before High Court which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 26.10.2000---Respondent filed execution petition and during its pendency he filed application on 08.12.2020 before the Trial Court claiming that since the revision petition had been dismissed, stay order issued on 20.07.2000 stood infructuous---Executing Court issued warrant of possession and concerned revenue officials completed the proceedings in compliance; report was submitted to Tehsildar; Assistant Commissioner verified the said proceedings; report was presented before executing Court and possession of the land was handed over to the decree holders---Petitioners/ defendants had filed application on 23.04.2001 for restoration of civil revision which was dismissed due to non-prosecution; vide order dated 31.01.2006 notice was issued to respondents (legal heirs of real respondent); on 27.08.2002 legal counsel appeared on behalf of the respondents and thereafter the case was not fixed, rather it was fixed on 22.06.2011 and on the said date counsel of the petitioners appeared and main civil revision of the petitioners was restored to its original number---During the proceedings of civil revision the respondents were proceeded against ex-parte---On 24.04.2012 High Court allowed the civil revision ex-parte and set-aside judgments/decrees passed by both the courts below and dismissed the respondent's suit with costs throughout---During the period in between dismissal of civil revision due to non-prosecution and the restoration of the same, the petitioners/vendees filed application before Trial Court for withdrawal of pre-emption amount which was allowed and same was withdrawn and received by the petitioners according to their respective shares---Petitioners remained silent for long time and then filed an applications for restoration of possession on 24.04.2015 and thereafter also filed the applications for re-depositing the sale consideration amount which was withdrawn by them earlier---Respondents / pre-emptors filed applications before High Court seeking rehearing of main civil revision wherein respondent was proceeded against ex-parte---High Court dismissed such applications on 05.05.2020 holding that the same had been filed in year 2015 not being within limitation period of 60 days from 24.04.2012---High Court also dismissed the application filed by the petitioners regarding the deposit of sale consideration amount which they had withdrawn from the learned Trial Court and application for restoration of possession was also turned down---Respondents assailed the orders of High Court in Supreme Court which remanded the case on 22.09.2020---Petitioners/ judgment debtors filed application for restoration of civil revision after six months of the dismissal of the civil revision and after four months of the proceedings of warrant of possession---In the said application petitioners did not mention anything regarding the proceedings of warrant of possession of the suit land---Record showed that they were present in such proceedings---Proceedings of the warrant of possession were completed by the revenue officials in accordance with law---Petitioners had not revealed the record of the application filed by them before the Civil Court for withdrawal of pre-emption amount---Conduct of petitioners/vendees showed that they had not come to the Court with clean hands---Relief (discretionary or otherwise) would not be available to a person who came to court with unclean hands---Application for rehearing of civil revision should be converted into the application under S.12(2) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 because law is based on equity, the discretionary relief would be available to a person who comes to court with clean hands---Petitioners had impliedly accepted the claim of the pre-emptors and withdrew the pre-emption amount from the court and in that regard their application for restoration of civil revision had become infructuous---Applications filed by the respondents for re-hearing of civil revision were converted into the application under S.12(2) of C.P.C. read with S.151 of C.P.C. under the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court which were accepted---Constitutional petitions were disposed of accordingly.

MUHAMMAD AKHTAR vs NIAZ AHMAD Ss — 2022 YLR 1803 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 YLR