NOOR DIN Versus ABDUL KARIM

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J. ‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiffs side in a suit for declaration, against the dismissal of their Civil Revision by the High Court. The petitioners' case was that a decree obtained by the respondents side was the result of collusion with respondent No.2. Their evidence was closed under Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. and the suit r was dismissed. This decision having been upheld in appeal and revision, the r ` petitioners have now sought leave to appeal.

2. Learned counsel, while relying on the judgment of a Magistrate 1st Class dated 9‑9‑1986, contended that the petitioners have succeeded in establishing in the Criminal Court that a fraud had been committed: So much so that an Advocate who was involved in the alleged fraud and was an accused in that case, made a confessional statement. He was accordingly convicted and let off on probation though the other accused had absconded. According to him, the said judgment would come i7 conflict with the judgment impugned in this case, if the High Court's judgment is not set aside and the case remanded for trial on merits. In addition, the learned counsel has argued the points raised in this petition.

3. After hearing him we consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. Order accordingly.

4. Security Rs. 5,000.

5. Records of both the cases; civil and criminal shall be summoned. If the criminal case is under appeal or revision, the record thereof be procured only at the time when the appeal arising out of this petition, is due for final hearing.

6. Notice in this case shall also issue to Munir Ahmad, Advocate, District Courts. Lahore, resident of Maula Bakhsh Road, Lahore.

7. H.B.T./N‑179/S Leave granted.