Concealment of first suit 2nd suit dismissed .
 |
Concealment of first suit 2nd suit dismissed . |
پہلی درخواست کو چھپانے کا نتیجہ: دوسری درخواست کی برخاستگی
مقدمے کا پس منظر
حقائق کے اخفا کی قانونی حیثیت
اصولِ استوپل اور دعویٰ کی پابندی
نظرثانی کے اختیار کا استعمال
حتمی فیصلہ اور قانونی اصول
Must read judgement
Concealment of first suit 2nd suit dismissed .
2024 C L C 1460
[Sindh (Sukkur Bench)]
Before Arbab Ali Hakro, J
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER IRRIGATION ROHRI DIVISION MORO and 4 others----Applicants
Versus
GUL MOHAMMAD----Respondent
Civil Revision Application No.S-31 of 2018, decided on 3rd May, 2024.
(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---
----Art. 114---Estoppel, principle of---Object, purpose and scope---Law of estoppel, as provided under Art. 114 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 prevents a party from denying truth of a fact it previously admitted---Principle in question is based on the premise that a person should not be allowed to contradict his previous statement or action if another person has relied on that statement or action to their detriment.
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O. VI, R. 1---Pleadings---New plea---Scope---No party can deviate from its pleadings---Pleadings are formal statements made by parties of their respective claims and defenses for the purpose of determining issues to be adjudicated---Court cannot set up a different plea for a party and decide the case on that basis.
(c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----Ss. 8, 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115---Suit for recovery of possession, declaration and injunction---Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below---Concealment of material fact---Material irregularity---Scope---Suit filed by respondent / plaintiff was decreed in his favour and Lower Appellate Court dismissed appeal filed by petitioner / defendant---Plea raised by petitioner / defendant was that respondent / plaintiff concealed filing of an earlier suit on same cause of action which had been dismissed---Validity---Concealment of material fact from Court is a serious matter that not only amounts to thwarting but also hoodwinking process of law---Such actions are unacceptable under any circumstances---Court operates on the principle of transparency and full disclosure, and any deviation from such principle can have severe consequences---Respondent / plaintiff had a duty to disclose pendency of earlier suit while filing subsequent suit---Failure to do so constituted concealment of material fact, leading to entire proceedings conducted by Trial Court being tainted with material irregularities and illegalities, rendering them unsustainable---Concurrent findings of both the Courts and the judgments and decrees passed by them were not beyond the purview of High Court's interference---High Court can invoke its revisional jurisdiction under S.115, C.P.C. if it is found that the judgments and decrees result from concealment of fact, misreading, or non-reading of the record or if the suit was not filed with clean hands---If judgments and decrees result from concealment of fact, misreading, or non-reading of the record, or if the suit was not filed with clean hands, it constitutes a material irregularity---Such irregularities are precisely the kind of situations that S. 115, C.P.C. is designed to rectify---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside concurrent findings of two Courts below and suit was dismissed---Revision was allowed, in circumstances.
2000 MLD 1537; 2000 CLC 1107; 2012 YLR 156; 2010 SCMR 17(3); 2015 CLC 393; 2005 YLR 2608; 1999 SCMR 2167; PLD 2009 Kar. 373; 2002 YLR 989; 1992 SCMR 786; 2020 CLC 583; 2011 SCMR 837; 1986 CLC 770; 2003 SCMR 501; 2021 SCMR 305; 2020 CLC 1219 and 2016 CLC 1090 ref.
Ahmed Ali Shahani, Assistant Advocate General for Applicants.
Abdul Qadir Shikh for Respondent