MUHAMMAD DIN (deceased) through Mujahid Hussain Qasim and others vs MUHAMMAD AMIN and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed a civil revision concerning the validity of a decree dated 26-7-1972. The petitioners contended that the decree was fraudulently obtained, alleging that their predecessor-in-interest, Rehmat Ali, never appeared before the court. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in finding the decree valid despite the allegations of fraud. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the findings of the trial court, which were affirmed by the appellate court and the High Court, were supported by evidence. Specifically, testimony from advocates who appeared as witnesses confirmed that the decree was passed in the presence of Rehmat Ali. The Court emphasized that Rehmat Ali himself never challenged the decree during his lifetime. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding the validity of a decree, when supported by credible evidence such as witness testimony, will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court in the absence of a compelling legal error.
- Can a decree be challenged on the basis of fraud if the predecessor-in-interest failed to challenge it during their lifetime?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by the trial court, appellate court, and High Court?
ORDER
1. ' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 31- 5-1999 of the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Civil Revision No, 516 of 1984 filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
2. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the decree, dated 26-7-1972 was fraudulently obtained by Muhammad Amin, respondent No,1 and according to him Rehmat Ali, predecessor-ininterest of the respondents, never appeared before the Court, therefore, for such reason the petitioners filed a suit on 5-12-1977 after the death of said Rehmat Ali who died on 26-2- 1976. According to him, the learned First Appellate Court as well the learned High Court without having attended to this aspect of the case had dismissed their suit.
3. We are not inclined to accept the above contentions of the learned counsel because a perusal of the judgments delivered by the Courts below indicates that the decree, dated 26-7-1972 was passed in presence of said Rehmat Ali as this fact had been testified by Messrs Abdul Hamid, Shah and Mian Tariq Advocates who appeared as D.Ws. A before the trial Court. The learned trial Court after having taken into consideration the fact of their evidence concluded that the decree. Dated 26-7-1972 was validly passed. Such, finding has been maintained by the Appellate Court as well as by the High Court. It may be noted that Rehmat Ali did not challenge the said decree during his life time therefore, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment being unexceptionable admits no interference by this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and .