MUHAMMAD AMIN And 6 Others vs NASIR And 3 Other
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the High Court dismissing the petitioners' application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The respondents' predecessor-in-interest had successfully filed an eviction application against the petitioners, which was subsequently resolved through a compromise in the High Court, granting the petitioners time to vacate the premises. Prior to the expiry of the agreed period, the petitioners filed a Section 12(2) application, claiming their deceased father had purchased the shop from the landlord prior to the eviction proceedings, a fact they allegedly discovered only recently. The High Court rejected this claim, finding that the revenue mutation was dishonestly manipulated with the assistance of revenue staff after the alleged purchaser's death. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's findings, holding that the plea of purchase was a fabricated attempt to frustrate the compromise ejectment order. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.
- Can a tenant challenge a compromise eviction order under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on a fraudulent and manipulated mutation of ownership?
- Whether a plea of ownership based on a backdated and manipulated revenue entry can be used to frustrate a compromise ejectment order?
- Does the failure to obtain the identity card of a vendor during a mutation attestation, coupled with the death of the purchaser prior to the alleged attestation date, render the mutation invalid?
- Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal- is sought against the order of the High Court dated 5-5-1991.
2. The facts, in brief, are that Abdul Qadir the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents filed an eviction application against the petitioners from the shop in question. This application was allowed by the Rent Controller. The petitioners challenged the eviction order in appeal before the High Court. The parties compromised the matter in the High Court whereby the landlord Abdul Qadir gave time to the petitioners for vacating the premises on or before 6-3-1991. On 21-2-1991, the petitioners filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Stating therein that their deceased father, namely, Muhammad Tufail had purchased the shop from Abdul Qadir, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents on 22-4-1986 and mutation to that effect was made in the Revenue Record.
Muhammad Tufail died on the same day when the shop was purchased. They, however, came to know about the purchase of the property on 11-2-1991. In this case the earlier eviction application was instituted by Abdul Qadir on 19-7-1987. The Rent Controller passed an order on 29-12-1988. The High Court disposed of the appeal on compromise on 6-3-1989. It, therefore, cannot be said that the petitioners were unware of the alleged purchase by their predecessor-in-interest. The High Court has elaborately discussed the evidence produced by the parties and came to the following conclusion:- "It appears that revenue staff apparently interested in manipulating the mutation entry, introduced certain persons to represent themselves as parties and basing on said fake and defective verification/identification, got attested EXA/1. Moreover if statement of A.W. Haji Sultan Muhammad about presence of relevant receipts alongwith documents is believed then mutation must have been placed subsequent to 14-5-1986. In such eventuality obviously Muhammad Tufail had died on 22-4-1986 thus could not be possibly present at the time of attestation. The fact that attestation relating to EXA/1 was carried out later than 22-4-1986 is further supplemented from application ExA/3 affidavit ExA/4 and copy of Identity Card ExA/5 evidently furnished to Municipal Authorities by the party desirous of accomplishing formalities of mutation. It is pertinent to note that factum of interpretation of dates is impliedly admitted by A.W. 7 Ghulam Akbar. Entry of Column Number 17 of ExA/1 clearly casts doubts on the stand of petitioners. Unfortunately revenue staff procured the identity card of purchaser, but did not obtain the identity card of vendor/seller which was most material and necessary. This further suggests his absence from the scene."
3. In view of the above weighty reasons, the petitioners could not displace such finding through reliable evidence. The conclusion is irresistible that the mutation was dishonestly manipulated. The plea of purchase has been set up in order to frustrate the ejectment order which was made on the compromise of the parties and sufficient time was granted to the petitioners by the landlord for handing over the possession of the shop.
4. There is no force in this petition. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.