2000 Y L R 2711

[Supreme Court (AJ&K)]

Present: Basarat Ama! Sa"# an! $uamma! Yunus Sura#%"& JJ
Sar!ar $'(A$$A) AYA* K(A+,,,Appe--ant
.ersus
AB)'L /AYY'$ K(A+ an! 27 oters,,,Respon!ents
Civil Appeal No. 142 of 1999, decided on 28th July, 2000.
(On appeal fro the !ud"ent and decree of the #i"h Court, dated $rd June, 1999 in
Civil Appeal No. 8 of 199%&.
01pun2t"on o3 remar#s,,,
'''' (uit) for pre'eption and for cancellation of con)ent decree'''(uit for cancellation of
)ale'deed in re)pect of land *a) decreed +y ,rial Court *ith con)ent of the partie)'''
-laintiff, *ho had filed the )uit for pre'eption on +a)i) of hi) prior ri"ht of purcha)e,
al)o filed )uit for cancellation of con)ent decree alle"in" that con)ent decree in the )uit
*a) procured fraudulently *ith connivance of ,rial Court in order to defeat hi) ri"ht of
pre'eption '''#i"h Court in it) !ud"ent had rear.ed that fraud had +een practi)ed
*ith the connivance of ,rial Court to defeat the preferential ri"ht of plaintiff and that
ca)e under relevant provi)ion) of la* )hould al)o +e re"i)tered a"ain)t the -re)idin"
Officer''',rial Jud"e filed appeal +efore (upree Court for e/punction of rear.)
recorded a"ain)t hint +y the #i"h Court'''No alle"ation *a) levelled a"ain)t ,rial Jud"e
in the )uit for cancellation of con)ent decree char"in" that he *a) re)pon)i+le for
taperin" *ith the record and pa))in" for"ed decree in the )uit'''No )uch alle"ation *a)
entioned in the eo of appeal +ut it *a) )pecifically averred therein that decree had
+een o+tained +y decree''holder) in connivance *ith Cler. of Court''Ca)e of the plaintiff
throu"hout had +een that taperin" of Court0) record too. place +ecau)e of connivance
of Cler. of, Court *ith vendee and vendor and it *a) for the fir)t tie that in the #i"h
Court the alle"ation) had +een levelled a"ain)t ,rial Jud"e'''1alidity'''#i"h Court,
thou"h had po*er to order re"i)tration of ca)e a"ain)t ,rial Jud"e, +ut it could +e done if
there *a) )ufficient aterial to proceed a"ain)t hi'''2vidence on record had e)ta+li)hed
that there *a) no )ufficient proof a"ain)t the ,rial Jud"e''#i"h Court could hold in3uiry
a"ain)t ,rial Jud"e under 2fficiency and 4i)cipline 5ule) and then to pa)) appropriate
order'''5e"i)tration of ca)e a"ain)t ,rial Jud"e did not )ee to +e nece))ary'''(upree
Court accepted appeal, ordered e/punction of adver)e rear.) a"ain)t appellant.
(ardar 6uhaad (adi3 7han and A+dul #aid 7han, Advocate) for Appellant).
(yed 6u)hta3 #u))ain 8ilani, Advocate for 5e)pondent No. 1.
9dad Ali 6allic., Advocate for 5e)pondent) No). 2 to 28.
4ate of hearin": ;th June, 2000.
J')4$0+5
$'(A$$A) Y'+'S S'RAK(.6& J7''',hi) appeal, +y *ay of leave of the Court,
ha) +een directed a"ain)t the !ud"ent and decree pa))ed +y the #i"h Court on $'<'1999,
for e/punction of rear.) pa))ed a"ain)t the appellant in para). No.< and 1< of the
!ud"ent.
2. ,he nece))ary fact), forin" the +ac."round of the pre)ent appeal, +riefly )tated, are
that a )ale'deed *a) e/ecuted on 20th July, 1994, *here+y land ea)urin" 24 7anal), $
arla), copri)in" 7he*at No.4%, 7hata No.1%;=10$ and 7he*at No. 124, 7hata
No.422, old 7ha)ra No).$09=4, $10=4, $10=4, $10=4, pre)ent 7ha)ra No).24, 2;, 2< and
2%, )ituate in villa"e ,ahlian, ,eh)il -allandri *a) purportedly )old to 6uhaad (aid
7han. ,he vendor) 7hadi #u))ain and 1$ other) filed a )uit on 1$th Au"u)t, 1994, in
the Court of (u+'Jud"e, -allandri )ee.in" cancellation of )ale'deed on certain "round)
entioned in the plaint. 6uhaad (aid 7han, *ho *a) ipleaded a) a defendant,
appeared on the )ae day and filed a *ritten )tateent in *hich he aditted the clai of
plaintiff) and con)ented that the )uit filed +y 7hadi #u))ain and 1$ other) ay +e
decreed. Accordin"ly the learned (u+'Jud"e ((ardar 6uhaad Aya> 7han& decreed the
)uit and annulled the )ale'deed on 1$th Au"u)t, 1994. A+dul ?ayyu 7han, re)pondent
No. 1 herein, filed a )uit for pre'eption on the +a)i) of hi) prior ri"ht of purcha)e. #e
al)o filed another )uit on 2'10'1994, in *hich he )ou"ht a declaration that the con)ent
decree, entioned a+ove, *a) void and it *a) a re)ult of the for"ery. 9t *a) al)o averred
that the con)ent decree *a) procured in order to defeat the ri"ht of pre'eption of
plaintiff're)pondent A+dul ?ayyu 7han. 9t *a) further alle"ed that the )uit *a) in fact
not filed on 1$th Au"u)t, 1994, +ut *a) filed on 18th Au"u)t, 1994. 9t *a) al)o alle"ed
that fraud *a) practi)ed to )ho* that the )uit *a) filed and decreed on 1$th Au"u)t, 1994,
*hich, a) claied, *a) clear fro the relevant docuent) and the Court0) re"i)ter.
$. @oth the )uit) *ere di)i))ed for *ant of proof on $0th Au"u)t, 199;. Air)t appeal
filed .+y A+dul ?ayyu 7han *a) di)i))ed +y the learned 4i)trict Jud"e, -allandri on
;th 6arch 199%, +ut the #i"h Court vide it) !ud"ent and decree, dated $'<'1999, ha)
accepted the )econd appeal filed +y A+dul ?ayyu 7han and ha) rever)ed the findin")
recorded +y the Court) +elo*. ,he #i"h Court ha) decreed the )uit in)tituted for
cancellation'of con)ent decree and ha) partly decreed the pre'eption )uit. ,he learned
Jud"e in the #i"h Court ha) recorded a clear findin" that the con)ent decree pa))ed on
1$th Au"u)t, 1994, *a) re)ult of fraud and taperin". ,he learned Jud"e ha) found that
the )uit *a) not tiled on 1$th Au"u)t, 1994, +ut *a) filed on 18th Au"u)t, 1994, *hen the
pre'eption )uit had already +een in)tituted. ,he learned Jud"e ha) ta.en the vie* that
fraud *a) practi)ed to defeat the preferential ri"ht of plaintiff. 9t *a), held +y the #i"h
Court that the afore)aid )uit *a) in)tituted )oe tie after the in)titution of the )uit for
pre'eption filed +y A+dul ?ayyu 7han, re)pondent herein, +ut the )ae *a)
fraudulently *ith the connivance of (u+'Jud"e and hi) cler. (Ahlad'Civil& )ho*n to
have +een in)tituted on 1$'8'1994. ,he (u+'Jud"e ille"ally pa))ed an order and decree on
the )aid date. ,herefore, it i) al)o held that the )ale'deed on the date the pre'eption )uit
*a) filed *a) intact. After holdin" )o in para. No.< of it) !ud"ent the #i"h Court in
concludin" para. No. 1< of the ipu"ned !ud"ent o+)erved that a ca)e under the
relevant provi)ion) of la* )hall al)o +e re"i)tered .eepin" in vie* the o+)ervation ade
in para. < of the !ud"ent, after the e/piry of period of liitation provided a"ain)t the
!ud"ent and decree, ho*ever )u+!ect to the order) +y the Appellate Court. ,he #i"h
Court ha) decreed the pre'eption )uit of re)pondent A+dul ?ayyu 7han to the e/tent
of land ea)urin" 10 7anal) and $ 6arla), out of land ea)urin" 24 7anal) and $
6arla), in 7he*at No.4%, alon" *ith a )hare in the hou)e, )u+!ect to order) *hich ay +e
pa))ed +y the Appellate Court. ,he #i"h Court al)o ordered that a ca)e in li"ht of it)
findin") +e re"i)tered a+out the fraud. A"ain)t the ipu"ned !ud"ent of the #i"h Court,
dated $'<'1999, t*o appeal) *ere filed, one +y 6uhaad (aid 7han and other) for
di)i))in" the )uit of re)pondent A+dul ?ayyu 7han and the other +y A+dul ?ayyu
7han for decreein" hi) )uit of pre'eption in toto. ,hi) Court vide it) !ud"ent pa))ed
on 12';'2000, di)i))ed the appeal filed +y (aid 6uhaad 7han and other) and
accepted the appeal filed +y A+dul ?ayyu 7han partly in ter) that apart fro the
decree of pre'eption "ranted in favour of A+dul ?ayyu 7han +y the #i"h Court to the
e/tent of land ea)urin" 10 7anal), $ 6arla), alon" *ith the )hare in the hou)e he i) al)o
entitled to a further decree of pre'eption to the e/tent of land ea)urin" 2 7anal), 19
6arla), copri)in" (urvey No.24, 7he*at No.124, 7hata No.42$=4$;, )ituate in villa"e
,ahlian, ,eh)il (udhnooti, on the +a)i) of conti"uity of hi) land *ith the vendor) on
payent of proportionate aount of con)ideration.
4. ,he pre)ent appeal, *ith the leave of the Court, ha) +een filed +y the appellant, herein,
for e/punction of rear.) recorded a"ain)t hi +y the #i"h Court in para). No).< and 1<
of the ipu"ned !ud"ent pa))ed on $'<'1999.
;. 9n )upport of appeal it *a) veheently ar"ued +y (ardar 6uhaad (adi3 7han, the
learned coun)el for the appellant, that it *a) not the ca)e of re)pondent A+dul ?ayyu
7han +efore the trial Court, the 4i)trict Jud"e and the #i"h Court that the appellant *a)
re)pon)i+le for taperin" the record and in any *ay connived *ith 6uhaad (aid
7han, re)pondent No.2 herein, to pa)) the con)ent decree in favour of 7hadi #u))ain
and 1$ other vendor). ,he learned coun)el for the appellant pre))ed into )ervice the
)u+i))ion that there *a) no aterial *hat)oever +efore the #i"h Court for holdin" the
appellant re)pon)i+le for taperin" and for"in" the record of the Court. ,he learned
coun)el contended that on the application oved +y A+dul ?ayyu 7han, re)pondent
No.1 herein, on 1%'9'1994, +efore the then (u+'Jud"e, the appellant herein, iediately
proceeded to i))ue notice to the concerned cler. a) to *hy he )hould not +e proceeded
a"ain)t +ut in the eantie he *a) tran)ferred to )oe other place. On 28'12'199;, hi)
)ucce))or (ardar 6uhaad An*ar 7han di)i))ed the application for non'pro)ecution
a) the coplainant A+dul ?ayyu 7han after ovin" the application did not turn up to
pro)ecute the )ae. ,he learned coun)el veheently ur"ed that the appellant *a)
condened unheard +y the #i"h Court a) +efore pa))in" an order for re"i)tration of the
ca)e a"ain)t the appellant he *a) not provided an opportunity of hearin" nor he *a) a
party +efore the #i"h Court. ,he learned coun)el )trenuou)ly ar"ued that the )uit *hich
*a) tiled for cancellation of the decree doe) not contain the alle"ation of any taperin"
or for"ery +y the appellant, thu), the #i"h Court travelled +eyond it) !uri)diction. ,he
!ud"ent and decree, a) a atter of fact, accordin" to the learned coun)el for the
appellant, *a) not in the hand*ritin" of (u+'Jud"e +ut the )ae i) in the hand*ritin" of
the relevant cler. (7halil'ur'5ehan&. Accordin" to the learned coun)el *hen the )uit
*a) pre)ented +efore the (u+'Jud"e on 18'8'1994, he pa))ed an order for B7afiat
(ari)htaB *hich appear) to +e 18'8'1994, and the )i"nature) of the then (u+'Jud"e are
affi/ed of the )ae date +ut later on it *a) tapered a) 1$'8'1994 +y the )aid cler. or
)oe other per)on. ,he learned coun)el contended that on the !ud"ent and decree, dated
1$'8'1994, the date and the *hole *ritin" i) fro the hand of the cler. of the Court and
not of the (u+'Jud"e. ,he learned coun)el therefore contended that in vie* of the
aterial +rou"ht on record +y the relevant partie), there *a) no co"ent rea)on for pa))in"
adver)e rear.) a"ain)t the then (u+'Jud"e.
<. (ardar A+dul #aid 7han, the other learned coun)el for the appellant, )upported the
contention) rai)ed +y (ardar 6uhaad (adi3 7han.
%. 9n reply it *a) contended +y (yed 6u)hta3 #u))ain 8ilani, the learned coun)el for
re)pondent No. 1, that he or hi) client had no "rievance a"ain)t the then (u+'Jud"e a) at
the tie of entertainin" the )uit, *hile orderin" for B7afiat (ari)htaB he put the date a)
18'8'1994, +ut later on it *a) tapered +y the cler. of the Court. ,he !ud"ent and
decree al)o appear to +e in the hand*ritin" of the )aid cler. +ut the (u+'Jud"e )i"ned the
)aid docuent), o)t pro+a+ly, due to ne"li"ence or carele))ne)) in a noral routine.
,he learned coun)el, ho*ever, aintained that the cler. of the Court (Ahlad'Civil& *a)
re)pon)i+le for taperin" the record of the Court in order to defeat the ri"ht of prior
purcha)e of plaintiff're)pondent A+dul ?ayyu 7han.
8. After hearin" the learned coun)el for the partie), it ay +e )tated that in the )uit tiled
+y plaintiff're)pondent A+dul ?ayyu 7han for cancellation of con)ent decree, there i)
no alle"ation a"ain)t the appellant herein that he *a) re)pon)i+le for taperin" the record
and pa))in" a for"ed decree in favour of 6uhaad (aid 7han, re)pondent No.2 herein.
On the other hand in para. No.4 of the plaint it ha) +een averred that the vendor) *ith the
connivance of 6uhaad (aid 7han and other) in order to defeat the ri"ht of pre'
eption of plaintiff're)pondent A+dul ?ayyu 7han filed a )uit for declaration and
procured the con)ent decree. A+dul ?ayyu 7han al)o prayed in the )aid )uit that the
con)ent decree +ein" void and +ein" a re)ult of connivance of defendant) 6uhaad
(aid 7han and other) +e declared a) ineffective a"ain)t the ri"ht) of plaintiff. (iilarly in
the eo of appeal +efore the 4i)trict Jud"e +y A+dul ?ayyu 7han, there i) no
alle"ation a"ain)t the then (u+'Jud"e rather in para. No.; of the eo of appeal it ha)
+een )pecifically averred that the decree ha) +een o+tained +y 6uhaad (aid 7han in
connivance *ith the cler. of the Court. On the application oved +y A+dul ?ayyu
7han +efore the then (u+'Jud"e for proceedin" a"ain)t the cler. of the Court it ha) +een
clearly referred in para. No.2 of the application that the )aid cler. *ith the connivance of
vendee 6uhaad (aid 7han tapered the record. (iilarly in )u+para). (a& and (+& of
para. No.2 it *a) )tated +y A+dul ?ayyu 7han that the vendee in order to defeat the
ri"ht of pre'eption of plaintiff're)pondent A+dul ?ayyu 7han *ith the connivance of
vendor) filed a )uit upon *hich the (u+'Jud"e ordered for B7afiat (ari)htaB and put the
date on the plaint a) 18'8'1994 +ut the vendee *ith the connivance of cler. (7halil'ur'
5ehan& tapered the date 18'8'1994 and entered a) 1$'8'1994, and thu) procured the
decree alle"edly pa))ed on 1$'8'1994. 9t *a) further averred +y A+dul ?ayyu 7han in
the application that the )tateent) of vendee and the *itne)) *ho identified hi *ere
recorded on 18'8'1994 +y the (u+'Jud"e, +ut the cler. of the Court tapered *ith the
record not only +y coittin" for"ery upon plaintiff +ut al)o upon the Court a) )uch he
ay +e proceeded a"ain)t. On thi) application the (u+'Jud"e, appellant herein, i))ued a
notice to 7halil'ur'5ehan, cler. of the Court on 1$'9'1994, +ut in the eantie the
(u+'Jud"e *a) tran)ferred and hi) )ucce))or pa))ed an order on 28'12'199;, that the
coplainant A+dul ?ayyu 7han de)pite variou) notice) ha) not appeared in the Court
a) )uch the application for initiatin" en3uiry a"ain)t the )aid cler. i) di)i))ed for n<n'
pro)ecution. 9n the eo. of appeal +efore the 4i)trict Jud"e filed +y re)pondent A+dul
?ayyu 7han there i) al)o no alle"ation a"ain)t the appellant rather in para. No.% of
eo. of appeal it ha) +een averred +y A+dul ?ayyu 7han, re)pondent No. 1 herein,
that the date) of in)titution of )uit and i))uance of decree *ere chan"ed +y the
connivance of cler. of the Court *ith 6uhaad (aid 7han and vendor). (iilarly in
the eo. of appeal +efore the #i"h Court there al)o )ee) to +e no alle"ation of any
taperin" or for"in" the record of the Court a) a"ain)t the appellant rather in para. No.%
it ha) +een )pecifically )tated that the then (u+'Jud"e at the tie of entertainin" the )uit
ordered for B7afiat (ari)htaB on 18'8'1994, +ut )oe Court0) BAhl.arB connived *ith
re)pondent and entered the date a) 1$'8'1994, *hereupon the pre)idin" officer did not
put hi) )i"nature. 9t *a) al)o averred that on the day of in)titution of the )uit the *ritten
)tateent *a) filed +y the vendee on the )ae day, *here+y he aditted the clai of
vendor). ,he )tateent) of vendee and hi) identifier *ere recorded on 18'8'1994.
(iilarly in )u+'para. (c& of para.. No.% of the eo. of appeal +efore the #i"h Court, it
ha) +een alle"ed that the BAhl.arB of the Court tapered *ith the record and )ho*ed the
in)titution of )uit a) 1$'8'1994.
9. ,he aforeentioned fact) tend to )ho* +eyond any anner of dou+t that the ca)e of
re)pondent A+dul ?ayyu 7han throu"hout had +een that the )aid taperin" of the
Court0) record too. place +ecau)e of the connivance of the cler. of the Court *ith the
vendee and vendor). 9t *a) for the fir)t tie durin" ar"uent) in the #i"h Court *hen
(ardar 6uhaad 7han, the learned coun)el for A+dul ?ayyu 7han, levelled
alle"ation) a"ain)t the (u+'Jud"e. On the ar"uent) advanced +y (ardar 6uhaad
7han, it *a) held +y the #i"h Court that the )uit *a) in)tituted )oe tie after the
in)titution of )uit for pre'eption filed +y the plaintiff'appellant therein +ut the )ae
*a), *ith the connivance of (u+'Jud"e and hi) cler., )ho*n to have +een in)tituted on
1$'8'1994. ,he (u+'Jud"e thu) ille"ally pa))ed the !ud"ent and decree on the )aid date.
10. #o*ever, if fraud or for"ery appeared fro the record the #i"h Court ha) the po*er
to order re"i)tration of a ca)e a) *a) actually done +ut the 3ue)tion *hich re3uire)
con)ideration i) *hether there *a) )ufficient aterial to proceed a"ain)t the appellant. 9t
ha) +een conclu)ively decided in Civil Appeal No.14$ of 1999 titled 6uhaad (aid
7han and other) v. A+dul ?ayyu 7han *hich !ud"ent *a) announced +y thi) Court
on 12';'2000 that the )uit under reference) *a) in fact filed on 18th Au"u)t 1994 +ut the
decree *a) fraudulently )ho*n to have +een pa))ed on 1$th Au"u)t 1994. 9t i) indeed
alarin" and unfortunate a)pect of the ca)e that the decree *a) pa))ed +y the appellant.
#o*ever the e/tenuatin" circu)tance) *hich appear in favour of appellant are that
)tateent) of vendee 6uhaad (aid 7han and hi) identifer An*ar #u))ain *ere
recorded in hi) o*n hand*ritin" on 18'8'1994. 9n our vie* if the appellant had connived
*ith the vendee in taperin" the record, he could have put the date on the )aid )tateent)
a) 1$'8'1994 in)tead of 18'8'1994. #o*ever the)e atter) can +e decided after proper
in3uiry. ,he #i"h Court ay hold an in3uiry under the0 2fficiency and 4i)cipline 5ule)
a"ain)t0 the appellant and then to pa)) an appropriate order. 5e"i)tration of a ca)e doe)&
not )ee to +e nece))ary. #o*ever0 re"i)tration of the ca)e a"ain)t BAhlad CivilB i)
nece))ary.
11. Aor the afore)tated rea)on), *e accept the appeal filed +y the appellant and order for
e/punction of adver)e rear.). ,he)e adver)e rear.) )hall )tand deleted and )hall not
+e read a"ain)t the appellant. A copy of thi) !ud"ent )hall +e )ent to the Chief Ju)tice of
the #i"h Court for proceedin" a"ain)t the appellant under the 2C4 5ule).
#.@, =9%=(C(AJC7&
Appeal accepted