MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH through L.Rs. vs SAEED AHMAD KHAN through L.Rs.
These petitions for leave to appeal were filed against a common judgment of the High Court regarding a dispute over land ownership and subsequent pre-emption proceedings. The predecessor of the petitioners had admitted the plaintiff's claim in a declaratory suit through his son, leading to a decree against him based on that admission. A subsequent pre-emption suit was also decreed. The petitioners later sought to nullify the consent decree through a separate suit and additionally filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, both of which were dismissed. The Supreme Court observed that neither the deceased petitioner nor his legal representatives had ever challenged the authority or competency of the son to act as an attorney or to concede the decree. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the decrees and orders passed were unassailable as the attorney's status remained unchallenged. Finding no error in the High Court's decision, leave to appeal was refused and both petitions were dismissed.
- Can a consent decree granted on the admission of an attorney be challenged if the authority of the attorney was never questioned during the proceedings?
- Is an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 maintainable to challenge a consent decree where the agent's competency was not disputed?
- Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
ABDUR RAHMAN KHAN, J.-- This order will dispose of Civil Petition No. 1685-L and 1686-L of 2001, as both impugn the common judgment dated 12.3.2001, passed by the High Court.
2. Saeed Ahmed Khan (sinc'e dead) represented by respondents, brought a suit for declaration in respect of ownership of the disputed land. Muhammad Abdullah petitioner (since dead) who is represented by his legal heirs as petitioners, admitted the claim of the plaintiff in that suit through his son Muhammad Aslam. Consequently, on this admission the suit was decreed by the learned Trial Court. The pre-emption suit was brought in respect of the sale so brought about in which the petitioners were impleaded. This suit was also decreed. It is to be noted that on one hand the petitioners filed suit to nullify the effect of consent decree and on the other hand they submitted an application u/S. 12(2), CPC to undo the effect of the petitioner suit. Both these matters failed. These petitions have, therefore, been moved to call in question the legality of the said two decisions. It is to be noted that at no stage the, petitioners as L.Rs. Of the deceased Muhammad Abdullah or for that Muhammad Abdullah himself had challenged the competency of his son as his attorney and to concede decree in the suit filed by the respondents against him. The same was the position even in the proceedings under Section 12(2), CPC. In view of all these facts when the factum of Muhammad Aslam son of Muhammad Abdullah deceased, as attorney, had at no stage been challenged, therefore, the decree in the suit for declaration as well as the order in the application u/S. 1 2(2), CPC are not open to exception. The High Court in the impugned judgment has not committed any error to justify interference. Leave is refused and both the petitions are dismissed.