HOSHIAR ALI KHAN vs GHULAM SABIR and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's civil revision against concurrent findings of the lower courts in consolidated suits. The core legal question concerns whether the failure to file a separate appeal or challenge a connected decree in a consolidated judgment warrants the dismissal of a revision petition. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had indeed challenged the judgment and decree affecting both suits in the lower appellate forum, as supported by the title and prayer of the appeal. Consequently, leave to appeal was granted to examine the matter further, and the interim order was directed to continue. The key principle laid down is that where suits are consolidated and disposed of by a single judgment, an appeal substantially challenging the outcome and seeking the dismissal of the opposing suit suffices to maintain subsequent proceedings.
- Does the failure to separately challenge each decree in a consolidated judgment warrant the dismissal of a revision petition?
- Can a joint appeal seeking to set aside a consolidated judgment and decree suffice for maintaining subsequent legal proceedings?
' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against an order of a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No, 1345 of 1983 dated 6-6-1992.
1. Relevant facts are that the petitioner and respondent No,1 filed declaratory suits which were consolidated and disposed of by a single judgment by the learned Civil Judge, Mandi Bahauddin, District Gujrat vide judgment and decree dated 12-4-1981 whereby the petitioner's suit was dismissed and that of respondent No,1 was decreed. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 7-6-1983. He filed a revision petition which had also been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had not challenged the decree passed in favour of the respondent vide the consolidated judgment.
2. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had filed joint appeal as would appear from its title at page 47 of the Paper Book, where it was prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree and for decreeing of the suit of the appellant and dismissal of the suit of respondent No,1 with costs of both the Courts. He also relies on "Siraj Din and 11 others v. Rajada"
(1992 SCM R 979).
3. To consider the contention leave to appeal is granted. Interim order dated 24-6-1992 to continue. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.