MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ And Another vs ATTA MUHAMMAD And Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioners against the concurrent dismissal of their civil suit and rejection of their plaint challenging the transfer of disputed property in favour of the contesting respondents. The core legal question is whether a party can resort to a fresh civil action to re-open a matter finally decided up to the highest court on a new ground of fraud that was available but never raised during the earlier settlement proceedings. The Supreme Court held that initiating a civil suit to re-open finally decided matters on grounds available earlier is improper, vexatious, and frivolous, thereby dismissing the petition for leave to appeal with costs. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot circumvent final adjudications by launching a fresh civil action on new grounds that could and should have been raised in prior proceedings.
- Can a party file a fresh civil suit to challenge a transfer order already finalized up to the highest court on the ground of fraud?
- Whether resorting to a civil action to re-open a finally decided matter on a new ground available earlier constitutes frivolous and vexatious litigation?
- Is the Supreme Court empowered to award costs while dismissing a petition for leave to appeal under its rules?
ORDER
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.-- The history of the case shows that Noor Din, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, had agitated the transfer of the disputed property in favour of the contesting respondents in as many as three rounds of litigation, the last one having come right upto this Court. Having failed throughout, the petitioners filed civil suit to challenge the same transfer order on the ground that it had been obtained by fraud, forgery and misrepresentation. In this round, to, they failed as their plaint was rejected and so was their appeal and revision. The High Court observed that neither Noor Din nor, after his death in 1964, the present petitioners, who had pursued the litigation, had asserted fraud before the Settlement authorities.
2. In view of the repeated pronouncements by this Court (see Abdul Majid v. Abdul Ghafoor Khan PLD 1982 SC 146 and Asif Jah Siddiqi v. Government of Sind PLD 1983 SC 46 resort to civil action for re-opening the matter finally decided upto the level of the highest Court in the country was not proper even on a new ground of fraud which ground had been available but not taken before the Settlement authorities in the earlier grounds. The suit was thus frivolous and vexatious and had compelled the other party to defend itself and now to file a caveat before this Court. We are, therefore, of the view that it will just and fair to burden the petitioners with costs under Order XXVIII, rule 3 read with Order XIII, rule 5 of this Court's Rules. Wed accordingly, while dismissing the petition for leave to appeal, award Rs. 4,000 in gross in lieu of taxed costs which amount on recovery shall be paid to the respondents.
Cited by 2 cases
- JAMIL AHMAD SHEIKH vs Ch. ZAFAR IQBAL and another 2010 YLR 1257
- Mst. SHABAN and anothers vs ABDUL MANAN 2004 PLD Peshawar 112