RAJA and others vs Mst. ARSHAD BIBI and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts. The dispute originated from a 1964 suit challenging a 1963 consent decree, which the plaintiffs alleged was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. The trial and appellate courts had initially upheld the decree, but the High Court reversed this, finding the decree invalid. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly interfered with concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of a consent decree obtained on the same day the plaint and written statement were filed. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly concluded the decree was fraudulent and not passed in accordance with law, as the respondents proved they were not parties to the consent. The principle laid down is that a court cannot pass a decree based on a plaint and written statement filed on the same day without proper judicial application of mind, particularly when the decree is proven to be fraudulent.
- Can a court pass a valid decree based on a plaint and written statement filed on the same day without proper judicial scrutiny?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact when the lower court has correctly appreciated evidence regarding fraud?
- Is a consent decree obtained through fraud and misrepresentation void ab initio?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, ACTG.C.J.--- This petition has been filed for leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 13th January, 2000 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore.
2. Precisely stating facts of the case are that respondents filed a suit on 5th May, 1964 for declaration and permanent injunction that the decree dated 14th January, 1963 passed by the trial Court allegedly with the consent of the parties is a result of fraud and misrepresentation, therefore, it being void ab initio had no legal effect as such the same may be cancelled and by passing an injunction the mutation entries issued in favor of the petitioners on the basis of same be cancelled and possession of the property, subject-matter of the suit, be restored which was dismissed by the trial Court on 20th May, 1976. Learned Appellate Court maintained the judgment of trial Court and appeal filed by them was dismissed on 4th February, 1989. Whereas learned Lahore High Court vide impugned judgment, dated 13th January, 2000 set aside the judgments of learned trial and Appellate Courts and decreed the suit of the respondent as such instant petition for leave to appeal has been filed.
3. Learned counsel contended that the consent decree, dated 14th January, 1963 was passed by the trial Court with the consent of both the parties but learned High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction on reappraisal of the evidence interfered in the concurrent findings of the trial and Appellate Courts without any legal justification.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for caveat contended that learned High Court had taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case on the basis of which the decree dated 14th January, 1963 was passed, therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment.
5. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the impugned judgment carefully. It may be noted that petitioners' claim is based on the validity or/the otherwise of the judgment dated 14th January, 1963. It is important to note that the case of the petitioners was that they entered into oral transaction of the land with the respondents and in pursuance of the same both the parties appeared before the trial Court on 14th January, 1963. They presented plaint and written statements respectively and got the decree; therefore, the decree cannot be considered to be invalid nor can be challenged before any competent Court of jurisdiction. It may be noted that on 14th January, 1963 when the plaint was filed by the petitioner, no process was issued by the trial Court for procuring attendance of respondents but obtained written statement from them; perhaps both the parties had attended the Court and got the decree. Thus, the learned High Court has rightly attended to the circumstances of the case and concluded that the trial Court was not in a position to pass a decree on the basis of plaint and written statements which were submitted on the same day.
' In our opinion as after filing consenting written statements, no cause of action was available to them and the trial Court on having applied his mind on the question as to whether under the circumstances a decree can be passed, particularly when respondents have proved in present proceedings that they were not party to the consent decree and it had been obtained fraudulently.
6. Since on the basis of material available on record learned High Court has rightly concluded that the decree, dated 14th January, 1963 has not been passed in accordance with law and respondents had proved that they were not party to the same, therefore, the conclusion which has been made on the proper appreciation of evidence, calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
' Thus, for the foregoing reasons we see no force in instant petition as such same is dismissed.