Mst. ARASH NOOR And 2 Others vs Haji GHULAM RABBANI And 10 Other
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for declaration filed by the plaintiffs (petitioners) seeking to declare certain exchange and sale deeds void and inoperative, alleging they were obtained through fraud, undue influence, collusion, and without consideration. The trial court decreed the suit, and the appellate court dismissed the respondents' appeal, thereby maintaining concurrent findings of fact in favor of the plaintiffs. However, the High Court accepted the respondents' civil revision and set aside these concurrent findings. The petitioners challenged the High Court's decision, arguing that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was unjustified as the case did not meet the statutory criteria. They further contended that the judgment violated established precedent protecting the property rights of female heirs. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to examine the scope of revisional jurisdiction and the protection of female property rights.
- Whether the High Court is justified in exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside concurrent findings of fact where no jurisdictional error is shown?
- Whether a judgment setting aside concurrent findings of fact in a property dispute involving female plaintiffs violates the protective principles established for female heirs' property rights?
- Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 115(1), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiffs' side in a suit for declaration; against the acceptance by the High Court, of respondents' Civil Revision.
2. The declaration sought was to the effect that the exchange and sale-deed one after the other in favour of the defendants were the result of fraud and undue influence, collusion and further that these transactions were in reality without consideration. And thus were void and inoperative against the rights of the plaintiffs. The suit was decreed. The respondent's appeal was also dismissed. The High Court accepted the respondents' Civil Revision and set aside the concurrent findings of facts.
3. Learned counsel has reiterated the points raised in this petition and has emphasized that there was no justification for exercise of revisional power for the High Court under section 115, C.P.C as the present case did not fall under any of the sub-clauses of subsection (1) of section 115, C.P.C. He has also contended that the impugned judgment runs counter to the law laid down in the case of Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1 in so far as the protection of the rights and interest in the land in dispute of the female petitioners is concerned. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is granted.
4. Security Rs. 5,000.
5. The appeal shall be prepared on present record with direction to the parties to file all those documents which shall be necessary for disposal thereof.