AJBAR KHAN And Others vs SAID HAKIM KHAN And OTHER
This revision petition challenges the judgment and decree dated 17-7-1996 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sumar Bagh, District Dir. The core legal questions involve the maintainability of a revision petition against a consent decree and the issue of limitation. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a revision petition is not maintainable against a consent decree under the law. Furthermore, the Court found the petition to be barred by time, having been filed on 18-2-1997, well beyond the prescribed period of 90 days. The Court also noted that the petitioners attempted to mislead the judicial process through the tampering of dates on the certified copy of the impugned judgment. The key principles laid down are that parties cannot maintain a revision against a consent decree, and petitions tainted with delayed filings and deliberate tampering of certified records are frivolous and liable to be dismissed with costs.
- Can a revision petition be maintained against a consent decree?
- What is the limitation period for filing a revision petition in the High Court?
- What are the consequences of tampering with dates on a certified copy of a judgment in a revision petition?
This revision petition has been directed against the judgment/decree, dated 17-7-1996 of the Additional District Judge/Izafi Zaila Qazi (Mr. Shah Jehan Khan) Sumar Bagh, District Dir.
2. Mr. Abdul Latif Khan Afridi, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Fateh Muhammad Khan, Advocate learned counsel for the respondents present and heard. Record of the case perused very carefully.
3. There is no need to give the brief history of the case because a perusal of the impugned judgment/decree would show that it is a consent decree and, therefore, the petitioners/defendants have no right, whatsoever, to institute this revision petition under the law.
4. Secondly, this revision petition is barred by time. The judgment/decree impugned was recorded on 17-7-1996 whereas the present revision petition was filed on 18-2-1997, far beyond the period of limitation i.e. 90 days.
5. Thirdly, the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands. They have tried to mislead the Court by tampering with the "dates" given on the certified copy of the impugned judgment so as to bring it "within time".Fortunately, the overwriting is so obvious that it could not escape the notice of the Court or be overlooked. In fact, this fact was also pointed out by the office as is clear from the office note dated 22-2-1997.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has been advised to direct his clients to refrain from such activities in future failing which they might be proceeded against in accordance with law.
7. This revision petition is frivolous and is accordingly dismissed with costs through out.
Cited by 6 cases
- YAHYA QURESHI vs ABDUL RASHID and 3 others 2003 CLC 1479
- Yahya Qureshi vs Abdul Rashid K.L.R. 2004 Civil Cases 43
- QAMARUL ISLAM, ADVOCATE vs S.M. GHARIB NAWAZ DACCAWALA, ADVOCATE K.L.R. 2002 Civil Cases 138
- EBRAHIM SOBANI Versus NASEEM AKHTAR SOOFI 2003 YLR 1821
- IZZAT KHAN vs Mst. INSHA ALLAH BEGUM and others 2001 PLD Karachi 396
- QAMAR-UL-ISLAM, ADVOCATE vs S.M. GHARIB NAWAZ DACCAWALA, ADVOCATE-ON-RECORD SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 2002 MLD 1282