Nazir Ahmed vs Falak Sher and 12 others
This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was filed against concurrent findings of fact recorded by three courts below, arising from an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Trial Court had passed a consent decree in a suit for specific performance instituted by respondent No. 2 against the other respondents. The petitioner subsequently filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 seeking to set aside the consent decree, which was dismissed by the Trial Court. The dismissal was upheld by the Additional District Judge, Multan in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, and the High Court subsequently concurred with these findings. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court’s order was just and proper as it adequately addressed all aspects arising from the parties' contentions. Finding no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, the Supreme Court held that the petition was devoid of merit and accordingly refused leave to appeal.
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by three courts below in the absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Whether a consent decree can be challenged under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without establishing fraud, misrepresentation, or want of jurisdiction?
- Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
1. IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.-- This petition is filed against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by all three Courts below. The Trial Court passed a consent decree in the suit of specific performance filed by respondent No. 2 against the rest of the respondents vide order dated 9.9.1991 whereafter application filed by the petitioner under section 12(2), CPC for setting aside the said decree has been dismissed on 10.12.1995. Findings so recorded was maintained by the Additional District Judge, Multan in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction vide order dated 15.9.1999. The learned High Court after going through the concurrent findings of both the Courts below concurred with the same. The order of the learned High Court seems to be just and proper in the circumstance of case as it has attended to all the aspects emerging from the respective contentions of the parties' counsel, therefore, in suck like situation to interfere with the impugned judgment is not called for.
2. Thus for the foregoing reasons, this petition being devoid of merits is dismissed and leave refused. .