Consent decree challenged after 40 years , an interested case law on consent decree.
🏛️ رضامندی کی ڈگری کو چالیس سال بعد چیلنج کرنا—عدالت نے ناقابلِ سماعت قرار دیا
⚖️ پس منظر:
⚖️ قانونی نکات:
1. رضامندی کی ڈگری کی حیثیت:
2. فراڈ کے الزامات میں وضاحت لازمی:
3. اشوز (Issues) بنانا ہر کیس میں ضروری نہیں:
4. حدود (Limitation):
🧾 عدالتی فیصلہ:
📚 حوالہ جات:
🧩 نتیجہ:
Must read decision of the Court .
2025 C L C 449
[Peshawar]
Before S M Attique Shah, J
YOUSAF KHAN and another ---Petitioners
Versus
ALTAF KHAN and others ---Respondents
W.P. No. 222-P of 2022 with IR, decided on 23rd November, 2023.
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----S.12(2), & O. VI, R.4---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Art. 181---Suit for declaration---Revenue entries, correction of Application under S.12(2), C.P.C.---Limitation---Consent decree passed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the predecessors of the petitioners and respondents---Failure of the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents to challenge the consent decree in their life time---Estoppel---Petitioners filed a time barred application under S.12(2), C.P.C., after more than 04 decades, which was dismissed by the Trial Court, whereafter civil revision was filed by the respondent, which was accepted while remanding the application back to the Trial Court for decision afresh on merits after framing of issues---Validity---Once consent judgment/decree/order, as the case may be, has been passed by a competent court of law, then the parties cannot resile from it without any cogent and valid reasons---Consent decree operates as estoppel by judgment---When a person raises the ground of fraud or concealment to allege his claim or defend his stance, the same has to be specifically pleaded with clear particulars, which in the present case were not detailed by the respondents in their application---Framing of issues in an application under S.12(2), C.P.C., depends on the circumstances of each case, nature of alleged fraud and the decree so, obtained---Framing of issues in every case to examine the merits of the application would certainly frustrate the very purpose and object of S.12(2), C.P.C., which is to avoid protracted and time consuming litigation in order to save the genuine decree holder from grave hardships, ordeal of further litigation, extra burden on their exchequer and simultaneously to reduce unnecessary burden on the courts below---Respondents had filed the application under S.12(2), CPC, after more than four long decades and that too without mentioning any specific date of knowledge therein, which was not maintainable being barred by law in terms of Art.181 of the Limitation Act, 1908---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.
Sailendra Narayan v. State of Orissa AIR 1956 SC 346; Warriach Zarai Corporation v. F.M.C. United (Pvt) Ltd 2006 SCMR 531 and Basher Ahmad through LRs and others v. Muhammad Hussain and others PLD 2109 SC 504 rel.
Asghar Ali for Petitioners.
Rashid Rauf Swati for Respondents.
No comments:
Post a Comment