Citation Name: 2024 YLR 704 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs NIAZ AHMAD Ss

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

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 704 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD TUFAIL VS NIAZ AHMAD Ss. 12(2), 151 & O. XLI, R. 21---Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991), S.24---Maxim "a man who seeks equity must come with clean hands"---Scope---Application for restoration of revision petition, dismissal of---Suit for possession filed by respondent/pre-emptor (deceased) was concurrently decreed--- Petitioners/defendants filed revision petition before High Court which was dismissed due to non-prosecution--- Respondent filed an execution petition and during its pendency he submitted the copy of the order of the Court for dismissal of revision and got warrant of possession in their favour and subsequently they got the possession of the suit land---Six months after the dismissal of the civil revision and after four months of the proceedings of warrant of possession, the vendees/judgment debtor filed an application for restoration of civil revision---In the said application vendees did not mention anything regarding the proceedings of warrant of possession of the suit land whereas record showed that they were present in the said proceedings---Petitioners/defendants had moved the application for withdrawal of pre-emption amount from the Court and as per procedure all the vendees signed over the application and received their respective shares---Petitioners/defendants did not deem it necessary to inform the Court regarding the withdrawal of amount or mentioning the taking over the possession of the decree holder, which was very strange because if such situation had been mentioned before the Court, the situation would have been different---During the proceedings of civil revision the respondents were proceeded against ex-parte---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---Conduct of the petitioners/ defendants-vendees showed that they had not come with clean hands and any discretionary relief or even relief would not available to a person who came to Court with un-cleaned hands---In an application the applicant/legal heirs of the deceased pre-emptor had mentioned the reason that impugned judgment was obtained by the defendants/vendees by concealment of facts from the Court, falling within the provision of S. 12(2), C.P.C.---However, 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---Prima facie it seemed that when the vendees filed an application in the court they mentioned that there was no further litigation pending and they sought permission for withdrawal of the amount which was allowed meaning thereby that they concealed the factum of the filing of the application for restoration of civil revision before High Court---Infact they impliedly accepted the decision of the courts below and in that regard their case was at the same footing as that of vendee who effected compromise with the pre-emptor in the other suit and got the pre-emption amount as per his share---Other important factor was that when the order for restoration of civil revision was passed the vendees did not file any application before any court for restoration of the possession or for depositing of the pre-emption amount which they had already withdrawn from the court, immediately, rather it was filed after elapse of more than three years after restoration of civil revision which itself reflectedmalafide on their part---So the vendees were not in the field and they had 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, therefore, the order which had been obtained by way of concealment of facts was not sustainable in the eyes of law---Applications filed by the applicants/legal heirs of deceased pre-emptor for rehearing of civil revision were converted into the application under S. 12(2) of C.P.C. read with S. 151,C.P.C. and it was declared that impugned judgment and decree passed by High Court was obtained by concealment of facts, therefore, same was not sustainable in the eyes of law and the suit for possession through pre-emption which had already been decreed in favour of deceased/plaintiff/pre-emptor by the both the courts below stoods in field--- Application filed by the respondents / defendants-vendees for restoration of civil revision was not maintainable, hence the same was dismissed---Constitutional petitions having become infructuous were disposed of accordingly.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 704 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs NIAZ AHMAD Ss — 2024 YLR 704 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR