Importance of Clean hand in specific performance.
لاہور ہائی کورٹ: حقائق چھپانے اور عدالتی عمل کے غلط استعمال پر سابقہ فیصلہ بحال
(Must Read Judgment)
عدالت: لاہور ہائی کورٹ، لاہور
رٹ پٹیشن نمبر: 77295 of 2019
تاریخ فیصلہ: 25 اپریل 2024
معزز جج: جسٹس شاہد بلال حسن
مقدمے کا خلاصہ
درخواست گزار مسز زبیدہ بی بی نے مدعا علیہ نمبر 2 کے خلاف
معاہدہ فروخت کی تکمیل (Specific Performance) کا دعویٰ دائر کیا تھا۔
مدعا علیہ نمبر 2 نے اس کے مقابلے میں دعویٰ برائے ڈیکلریشن دائر کیا۔
ٹرائل کورٹ سے سپریم کورٹ تک عدالتی تاریخ
(1) ٹرائل کورٹ نے 11.07.2013 کو
درخواست گزار کے حق میں ڈگری جاری کی
اور مدعا علیہ نمبر 2 کا دعویٰ خارج کر دیا۔
(2) اپیلیں 19.11.2015 کو خارج ہوئیں۔
(3) لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے 29.03.2017 کو
ریویژن پٹیشنز مسترد کر دیں۔
(4) سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان نے
03.10.2017 کو دائر کی گئی
تمام CPLAs خارج کر دیں۔
ڈگری پر عمل درآمد (Execution)
سپریم کورٹ کے فیصلے کے بعد:
(1) درخواست گزار نے ایگزیکیوشن فائل کی۔
(2) 14.12.2017 کو سیل ڈیڈ رجسٹر ہو گئی۔
(3) 27.07.2018 کو ایگزیکیوشن مکمل قرار دے دی گئی۔
تیسرے فریق (Respondent No.3) کی مداخلت
مدعا علیہ نمبر 3 (جو مدعا علیہ نمبر 2 کا داماد ہے) نے:
(1) 1998 کے مبینہ معاہدہ فروخت کی بنیاد پر
علیحدہ دعویٰ دائر کیا (جو تاحال زیر سماعت تھا)۔
(2) ایگزیکیوشن میں اعتراضات دائر کیے
جو بعد ازاں واپس لے لیے گئے۔
(3) دفعہ 12(2) CPC کے تحت
بار بار درخواستیں دائر کیں۔
حقائق چھپانے اور فراڈ پر عدالت کے ریمارکس
لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے واضح طور پر قرار دیا کہ:
(1) مدعا علیہ نمبر 3 نے:
سپریم کورٹ میں دائر CPLAs،
ایگزیکیوشن اعتراضات،
اور اپنی زیر التواء سول سوٹ
— سب کچھ چھپایا۔
(2) یہ تمام عمل:
👉 فراڈ اور حقائق کے اخفاء کے مترادف ہے۔
(3) عدالت میں آنے والے شخص کے لیے
صاف ہاتھ (Clean Hands) کے اصول پر عمل لازمی ہے۔
دفعہ 12(2) CPC اور Principle of Merger
عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ:
(1) جب معاملہ سپریم کورٹ میں
میرٹس پر طے ہو جائے تو
Principle of Merger لاگو ہوتا ہے۔
(2) ایسی صورت میں
دفعہ 12(2) CPC کی درخواست
صرف سپریم کورٹ میں دائر کی جا سکتی ہے،
نہ کہ ٹرائل کورٹ میں۔
(3) اس حوالے سے
PLD 2016 SC 358 (Sahibzadi Mehar-un-Nisa case)
پر انحصار کیا گیا۔
ٹرائل کورٹ بمقابلہ ریویژن کورٹ
لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ:
(1) ٹرائل کورٹ کا فیصلہ
حقائق اور قانون کی درست جانچ پر مبنی تھا۔
(2) ریویژن کورٹ نے
قانونی اصولوں کو نظر انداز کیا۔
حتمی فیصلہ
عدالت نے فیصلہ دیا کہ:
(1) آئینی درخواست منظور کی جاتی ہے۔
(2) ریویژن کورٹ کا فیصلہ
مورخہ 28.11.2019 کالعدم قرار دیا جاتا ہے۔
(3) ٹرائل کورٹ کا فیصلہ
مورخہ 29.05.2018 بحال کیا جاتا ہے۔
(4) اخراجات کے بارے میں کوئی حکم نہیں۔
قانونی نکتہ (Key Takeaway)
(1) حقائق چھپا کر حاصل کیا گیا حکم
عدالت میں برقرار نہیں رہ سکتا۔
(2) دفعہ 12(2) CPC
بار بار اور بدنیتی سے استعمال نہیں کی جا سکتی۔
(3) سپریم کورٹ کے فیصلے کے بعد
Principle of Merger لازماً لاگو ہوتا ہے۔
(4) شفافیت، دیانت اور
قانونی طریقہ کار کی پابندی
عدالتی نظام کی بنیاد ہے۔
The court decision emphasized the importance of coming to court with clean hands and upheld the trial court's decision, reinstating it due to the respondent's concealment of facts and violation of legal principles.
Brief story of the case
The case involves a dispute over the specific performance of an agreement between Mst. Zubaida Bibi (the petitioner) and the respondent No. 2. Despite several legal proceedings and appeals, the petitioner eventually obtained a favorable decree, leading to the registration of a sale deed in her name. However, the respondent No. 3, who is the son-in-law of respondent No. 2, filed multiple applications and objection petitions, withholding crucial information and influencing court decisions. The court criticized the respondent for lack of transparency, suppression of material facts, and obtaining orders through concealment and misrepresentation, thereby violating the clean hands doctrine. Consequently, the judgement reinstated the trial court's decision, emphasizing fair assessment of facts and adherence to legal principles.
Main points discussed in case law
The main points discussed in the case law include:
1. **Specific Performance of Agreement**:
The petitioner sought specific performance of an agreement, which was decreed in her favor by the trial court.
2. **Legal Proceedings and Appeals**:
Despite the favorable decree, the case went through various legal proceedings and appeals.
3. **Fraud and Concealment of Facts**
: The son-in-law of one respondent was criticized for fraud and concealment of material facts, influencing court decisions.
4. **Violation of Clean Hands Doctrine**:
The court emphasized the importance of coming to court with clean hands, highlighting the respondent's lack of transparency and suppression of facts.
5. **Proper Appreciation of Facts and Law**:
The trial court's decision to dismiss the son-in-law's application was upheld, as it was based on a proper appreciation of facts and law.
6. **Restoration of Trial Court's Decision**:
The judgment restored the trial court's decision, underscoring the importance of fair assessment of facts and adherence to legal principles.
Overall, the case law emphasizes the significance of transparency, honesty, and adherence to legal procedures in the judicial process.
Must read judgement
Form No: HCJD/C-121
ORDER SHEET
LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Writ Petition No.77295 of 2019
Mst. Zubaida Bibi Versus Addl. District Judge, etc.
S. No. of order/
Proceeding
Date of order/
Proceeding
Order with signature of Judge, and that of
parties or counsel, where necessary
25.04.2024 Chaudhry Abdul Rehman Jawan,
Advocate for the petitioner
Respondents No.2 and 3 ex parte on
07.02.2023
Succinctly, the petitioner Mst. Zubaida
Bibi instituted a suit for Specific Performance of
agreement against the respondent No.2, which was
duly contested by the respondent No.2. The
respondent No.2 filed suit for declaration, which was
contested by the petitioner. The learned trial Court
vide consolidated judgment and decreed dated
11.07.2013 decreed the suit in favour of petitioner
and dismissed suit of the respondent No.2; appeals
filed against the said consolidated judgment and
decree was dismissed vide judgment and decree
dated 19.11.2015 and revision petitions were also
dismissed vide consolidated judgment dated
29.03.2017 by this Court. The respondent No.2 filed
two separate CPLAs in the Supreme Court of
Pakistan which were dismissed vide consolidated
W.P.No.77295 of 2019
2
judgment dated 03.10.2017. After decision of the
Supreme Court of Pakistan, the execution petition of
the petitioner started and sale deed was registered on
14.12.2017 in the name of the petitioner, where-after
the execution petition was consigned being satisfied
on 27.07.2018. The respondent No.3 instituted a suit
for specific performance on the basis of purported
agreement to sell dated 02.08.1998 against the
respondent No.2, which is still pending. The
respondent No.3 filed an objection petition against
the aforesaid judgment and decree in the execution
petition but the same was dismissed as withdrawn on
27.01.2018. On 16.10.2017, the respondent No.3
filed an application under section 12(2), Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 before the learned trial Court
on the basis of above said agreement to sell dated
02.08.1998 and the same was dismissed as
withdrawn on 25.11.2017. The respondent No.3
filed second application under section 12(2) CPC
before this Court by suppressing the facts that
CPLAs from Supreme Court of Pakistan, his
objection petition and earlier petition under section
12(2) CPC were dismissed and his aforesaid suit is
still pending and under wrong facts obtained order
dated 29.03.2017 with the observation that the
W.P.No.77295 of 2019
3
respondent No.3 may file application under section
12(2) CPC before the learned trial Court. On
29.12.2017, the respondent No.3 filed his third
application under section 12(2), Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 before the learned trial Court,
which was resisted by the present petitioner. The
learned trial Court vide order dated 29.05.2018
dismissed the said application on merits. The
respondent No.3 being aggrieved preferred an
appeal, which was converted into revision petition
and the same was accepted vide impugned judgment
dated 28.11.2019 by the learned Addl. District Judge
and order dated 29.05.2018 was set aside with
further observation that when the court comes to the
conclusion that it has no jurisdiction only application
under section 12(2) CPC is to be returned for its
presentation to the proper forum; hence, the instant
constitutional petition.
2.
Heard.
3.
First of all it is observed that one has to
come in the Court with clean hands; however, the
respondent No.3 while filing C.M.No.121423 of
2017 in C.R.No.4624 of 2015 did not disclose the
factum of filing of CPLAs No.1492-L and 1493-L of
2017 against the judgment dated 29.03.2017 passed
W.P.No.77295 of 2019
4
by this Court in C.R.No.4624 of 2015 and 868 of
2016 as well as facts of filing objection petition in
the learned Executing Court. The respondent No.3
also did not disclose the factum of instituting suit for
specific performance on the basis of agreement to
sell dated 02.08.1998; meaning thereby the said
order dated 20.12.2017 was obtained by playing
fraud and concealment of facts by the respondent
No.3. Had the respondent No.3 disclosed the above
said facts, the result would have not been the same
as was ordered while passing the order dated
20.12.2017. It is also a notable fact that the
respondent No.3 is son in law (داامد) of respondent
No.2, against whom decree in respect of specific
performance of agreement to sell dated 31.10.1998
registered on 02.11.1998 was passed in favour of the
present petitioner. As the suit of the respondent No.3
is pending adjudication against the respondent No.2
therefore, any observation in respect of relationship
and conduct of the said respondents may prejudice
the parties, therefore, I hold my hands back from
giving any observations.
4.
It is observed, with brevity, that the
Supreme Court of Pakistan while passing
W.P.No.77295 of 2019
5
consolidated judgment dated 03.10.2017, deciding
CPLAs No.1492-L and 1493-L of 2017, dilated
upon and discussed facts of the case in detail and
dismissed the appeals by observing as such that,
‘Consequently, both the titled Civil Petitions being
without merit are dismissed and leave declined.’
(emphasis supplied); therefore, keeping in view the
ratio of judgment reported as Sahibzadi Mehar-unNisa and another v. Mst. Ghulam Sugran and
another (PLD 2016 SC 358), considering the
principle of merger, the proper forum for filing
application under section 12(2), Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, is Supreme Court of Pakistan. The
relevant part of the said judgment is reproduced as
under:-
‘…… It is thus clear that where a
matter has been heard and decided by
this Court in appeal and the verdict of
the lower forum has been affirmed on
merits the rule of merger shall duly
apply, and thus the application under
section 12(2) of the C.P.C. subject to
the exceptions mentioned in the
concluding part of this judgment can be
competently filed before this Court.’
While concluding it was further held that:-
W.P.No.77295 of 2019
6
(iii) In the cases of reversal or
modification of the judgment of the
High Court(s), or those affirmed in
appeal (where the matter does not fall
within the exceptions) the judgment of
the Supreme Court shall be deemed to
be final for moving an appropriate
application on the plea of lack of
jurisdiction, misrepresentation and
fraud;’
5.
In view of the above, it is concluded
that the respondent No.3 did not come in the Court,
while filing C.M.No.121423 of 2017, with clean
hands, therefore, the order dated 20.12.2017 was
obtained through concealment of facts and the
respondent No.3 also concealed the factum of filing
of an independent suit for specific performance of
purported agreement to sell dated 02.08.1998 against
the respondent No.2, who is admittedly his father-inlaw (سرُس
) and in order to cause hindrance in the way
of the petitioner to enjoy the fruits of the decree,
passed in her favour, filed different applications and
objection petition. Therefore, the learned trial Court
rightly dismissed the application under section
12(2), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the
respondent No.3. The order passed by the learned
W.P.No.77295 of 2019
7
trial Court is based on proper appreciation of facts
and law than that of the learned revision Court.
6.
For the foregoing reasons, the
constitutional petition in hand is allowed, impugned
judgment dated 28.11.2019 is set aside and that of
the learned trial Court dated 29.05.2018 is restored.
No order as to the costs.
(Shahid Bilal Hassan)
Judge
Approved for reporting.
Judge