FAZAL MEHDI and others vs ALLAH DITTA
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil dispute concerning a pre-emption suit. The petitioners challenged a consent decree passed by the trial court on 20.12.1987, alleging that the consent was obtained through fraud. While the Additional District Judge initially set aside the decree, the Lahore High Court remanded the matter, subsequently leading to the dismissal of the petitioners' appeal and the subsequent dismissal of their Civil Revision No. 3378 of 1994 by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. The core legal question presented to the Supreme Court is whether a decree in a pre-emption suit could legally be passed on the basis of consent after 31.7.1986, in light of the provisions of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. Additionally, the Court considers the petitioners' grievance that the High Court failed to address their contention regarding the authenticity of the alleged consent. Finding these contentions to be substantial and requiring deeper examination, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and ordered the continuation of the interim relief previously granted.
- Can a decree in a pre-emption suit be passed on the basis of consent after 31.7.1986 under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913?
- Does a failure by the High Court to address a material contention regarding the authenticity of a consent decree warrant the grant of leave to appeal?
- Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913
ORDER
TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J. -- Leave to appeal is sought against the order dated 1.6.2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby Civil Revision No. 3378 of 1994 filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
2. The facts briefly stated for the disposal of this petition are that the respondent instituted a suit against predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners seeking possession through pre-emption. The pleadings were contested by the petitioner, whereupon Issues were framed. Evidence was adduced by the parties and, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in a clandestine manner on the basis of alleged consent, decree was passed by the learned Civil Judge on 20.12.1987. The petitioners challenged this decree pleading that the alleged consent was secured through fraud and the learned Additional District Judge set aside the order of the Civil Judge vide his judgment dated 30.9.1989. The respondent filed Civil Revision No. 1966 of 1989 in the Lahore High Court, which was accepted and the case was remanded vide order dated 3.5.1993 to the learned Additional District Judge for his decision after hearing the parties. After remand the appeal of the petitioners was dismissed vide judgment/decree dated 21.9.1994. Aggrieved by the said judgment the petitioners preferred Civil Revision No. 3378 of 1994, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge through his order dated 1.6.2001. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has inter alia argued that no decree in a pre-emption suit under the provisions of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, could have been passed after 31.7.1986 while the Trial Court's decree in the instant case was passed allegedly by consent on 20.12.1987. It has further been argued that the petitioners throughout challenged the authenticity of the alleged consent but no reference whatsoever has been made by the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court in the impugned order.
4. The above contentions inter a/ia raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners require consideration. Leave to appeal is, accordingly, granted to consider the same. Interim order dated 16.7.2001 passed by this Court will continue during the pendency of the appeal arising out of this petition.