MUHAMMAD YASIN KHAN vs REHMAT KHAN And Other
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal directed against identical orders of the Lahore High Court dismissing revision applications, which upheld the rejection of the petitioner's plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner had filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that a compromise entered into by the respondents in prior proceedings before the Supreme Court was inconsequential to the petitioner's rights regarding disputed land. The core legal question was whether the rejection of the plaint and the holding that the suit was barred under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 were legally correct. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court rightly declined to interfere as the suit was barred under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and further noted that the petition was liable to be dismissed due to the suppression of material facts concerning the dismissal of a prior civil review petition. The key principle established is that a suit challenging a judgment or compromise obtained in such manner is barred under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and suppression of material judicial history warrants dismissal.
- Whether a suit challenging a compromise decree is barred under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the suppression of material facts, such as the dismissal of a prior review petition, warrant the dismissal of a leave to appeal petition?
- Is the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 justified when the suit is barred by law?
- Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
S.A. NUSRAT, J.--This order will dispose of the above two petitions for leave to appeal No. 317 and 318 of 1985 which are directed against two identical orders passed by the learned Lahore High- Court dismissing two revision applications involving similar facts and grounds.
2. The petitioner brought a suit in the Court of civil Judge Second Class, Chunian, District Kasur asking for a declaration that a compromise entered into by the defendants/ respondents in this Court in a case arising out of Mukhbari proceedings against the allotment of Rehmat Khan was inconsequential qua the rights of the petitioner in the disputed land as he was not a party before the Supreme Court. The plaint was rejected by the trial Court under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. The petitioner's appeal against the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 6- 1-1985 and his revision petition challenging the above orders also failed as per judgment impugned herein.
3. We have gone through the orders passed in the case as also the order of this Court recording the compromise.
4. The learned High Court rightly declined to interfere in the case on the ground that even otherwise the suit of the petitioner was barred l under subsection (2) of section 12, C.P.C. This finding isl unexceptionable. The petition is also liable to be dismissed on account of suppression of facts because the petitioner has not mentioned that the order of this Court recording the compromise, dated 13-8-1983 was challenged by him by means of a Civil Review Petition No. 10-R of 1984 before this Court which was dismissed on 20-5-1984. Such fact was brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the caveator/ respondents.
5. For the reasons mentioned above the petition is without merit and is accordingly dismissed.