Master MAZHAR HUSSAIN and another vs Mst. ROBINA BIBI and another
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a civil suit for the recovery of 'Badle-Suleh' (blood money) paid to settle a murder case. The petitioner, along with another individual, received funds intended for the legal heirs of the deceased, which were deposited into a joint bank account. The petitioner subsequently withdrew the funds but failed to distribute them to the respondent, the deceased's widow. The respondent filed a recovery suit, which was decreed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court and the High Court in civil revision. The core legal question was whether the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, given the joint nature of the account, and whether the decree was executable against the petitioner alone. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's withdrawal of the funds established his liability. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, noting that the objection regarding non-joinder was raised too late and that a technical defect in the suit does not render a decree inexecutable.
- Can an objection regarding the non-joinder of necessary parties be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- Does the withdrawal of funds from a joint account by one party establish exclusive liability for the repayment of those funds?
- Does a technical defect in a suit render a decree inexecutable?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has been filed seeking leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 30- 72002 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore -High Court Rawalpindi Bench; in a civil revision arising out of a suit for recovery of money..
2. The facts leading to this petition are that one Abdul Aziz, husband or Mst. Robina, respondent - herein,. Was murdered and pending trial of the accused -in the murder case, the legal heirs of the deceased compromised With the accused through the intervention of respectables of the area including the present petitioner and the then local MPA namely Raja Javed Ikhlas. The amount of Rupees two lacs as Badle-Suleh was paid to the petitioners and Raja Javed Ikhlas for onward payment to the legal heirs of deceased on disposal of the case against the accused. The amount was deposited. In the joint account of petitioner and Raja Javed Ikhlas in National Industrial Cooperative Bank and subsequently petitioner arranged withdrawal of the amount in question from the bank for payment. To legal heir of the deceased but on failure of petitioner to do the needful, Mst: Robitia Bibi, respondent No,l. On her own behalf and on 'behalf of her minor daughter, filed a suit against the petitioner for recovery of the amount of Badle Suleh. The petitioner contested the suit and while denying his liability also pleaded that respondent No,1 was divorced by the deceased much before his death, therefore, she was not entitled to receive the amount of Badle Suleh as legal heir of deceased. The learned trial Judge 'Vide.Judgment, dated 20-9-2000 decreed the suit which was further upheld by a learned Additional District Judge in appeal filed by the petitioner and also-in civil revision preferred by him in the High Court.
3. Learned counsel for the 'petitioner with reference to the statement of Mst. Robina and Raja Javed Ikhlas, has contended that admittedly the amount of Badle Suleh paid-by the accused was deposited in the National Corperative Industrial Bank in the joint account ofpetitioner and Raja Javed Ikhlas therefore, the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and could not proceed against the petitioner alone, as Raja Javed Ikhlas being joint account holder would equally be responsible for the payment of the amount in question but unfortunately all the three Courts were misdirected in fixing exclusive liability of the petitioner.
4. The perusal of statements of Raja Javed Ikhlas and Mst. Robina would reveal that the amount was deposited in the joint account in the National Industrial Cooperative Bank but subsequently it was withdrawn by the petitioner from the bank for payment to the legal heirs of the deceased. The learned Judge in the High Court having discussed the evidence in detail affirmed the concurrent findings of the two Courts on the question of fact and we have not been able to find out any material defect in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court in the matter.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made an attempt to argue that it being a case of collective responsibility the decree only against the petitioner would not be executable. We are afraid, the objection which was not taken at the proper stage of the proceedings. Cannot be allowed to be raised for the fist time before this Court and in any case the technical defect in the suit if any, would not make the decree inexecutable.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this petition having no substance is dismissed. Leave is refused.