2024 SCMR 1390 SUPREME-COURT

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

MUHAMMAD ASLAM VS Molvi MUHAMMAD ISHAQ If an Order of the lower Court merges in the order of the higher Court, the order of the lower Court is to be deemed as an order of the higher Court. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 1390 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ASLAM VS Molvi MUHAMMAD ISHAQ No one should suffer on account of a lapse on the part of a Court. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 1390 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ASLAM VS Molvi MUHAMMAD ISHAQ S. 12(2)---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Art. 181---Application under section 12(2), C.P.C., filing of---Limitation---In the present case applications under section 12(2), C.P.C. were filed in the year 1990, i.e. after almost 11 years of the compromise between the parties before the Court---Though it was averred that these applications were filed after the entries of jamabandi made in 1987 and hence were in time, but it was equally true that in those applications the main question agitated on behalf of the respondents was with regard to the entering into the compromise in a defective manner and thereafter, obtaining the decree by way of fraud or misrepresentation by the present appellants---Under the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1908 no specific time has been prescribed for filing of application under section 12(2), C.P.C., therefore, Article 181 of Limitation Act, 1908 being residuary will govern such proceedings according to which maximum period of three years has been prescribed for filing the application under section 12(2), C.P.C.---Therefore, even in a hypothetical sense, if one were to count the period of limitation from the year 1987, the applications under section 12(2), C.P.C. were time-barred---In the instant matter, the respondents were fully aware about the date and facts of the compromise entered between the parties in 1979 but filed the applications under section 12(2), C.P.C. only in the year 1990---Appeals were allowed and the applications under section 12(2), C.P.C. against the appellants were found to be bereft of any merits. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 1390 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ASLAM VS Molvi MUHAMMAD ISHAQ art. 91---Judicial proceedings---Presumption as to documents produced as record of evidence---Scope---Possession of land delivered after parties entering into a compromise before the High Court---Compromise, legitimacy of---assertion of attorney of the (late) defendant that he had neither entered into a compromise nor had appeared before a Court of law was nothing but an after thought on his part---Said attorney had admitted that it was he who had been hiring the counsel right from the Trial Court to the Supreme Court, as an attorney on behalf of the defendant, but stated that he had never asked from those counsel, appointed by him, about the fate of those matters, which appeared to be an unbelievable story---When the attorney was asked by the Trial Court regarding the whereabouts of the original Power of attorney, he stated that he had no knowledge about the same but strangely enough submitted that the signatures on the photocopy of the Power of attorney, produced as secondary evidence before the trial Court, were not his, which, created heavy doubts about the veracity of the statements made by him---It was also strange to note that the defendant passed away in the year 1988, whereas the compromise was entered in the year 1979, and he never uttered a single word during his lifetime either with regard to the veracity of the compromise entered by his attorney before the Court or with regard to the genuineness of the Power of attorney given by him in his lifetime to the attorney and it was only after his death that his legal heirs filed the applications under section 12(2), C.P.C. questioning the compromise or lesser payment of Zar-e-Shufa by agitating that the decree obtained by the (late) appellant/plaintiff was by way of fraud or misrepresentation---It was also strange on the part of the legal heirs of the defendant or for that matter his brother, that they kept mum for a number of years i.e. 1979 to 1987 and, thereafter, agitated the matter either by filing of a suit for possession or through applications under section 12(2), C.P.C. claiming possession over suit land without realizing that the matter with regard to possession and ownership of the land comprising part of the suit land had already been laid to rest in an earlier round of litigation---appellants were successful in showing that the findings arrived at by the fora below were erroneous, especially in view of the sanctity attached to the compromise entered before a Judge of the High Court---appeals were allowed and respondents were restrained from interfering and dispossessing the appellants from the suit land or any building constructed by them on such land. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 1390 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ASLAM VS Molvi MUHAMMAD ISHAQ art. 185---appeal before the Supreme Court---Concurrent findings of lower courts, interference in---Scope---Usually concurrent findings of the lower Courts are not to be disturbed and interfered with, but in cases where such findings are found to be erroneous and perverse, they are liable to be struck down if based on misreading or non-reading of the material available on the record or the evidence and are a result of miscarriage of justice.

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 SCMR