 |
| Special cost on fake case |
 |
| Special costs on fake and frivolous appeal ( supreme court authority) |
Following judgement of supreme court
main supreme court ne appeal fole karne wale ko 500000 ( 5 lakh) jurmana kar dia or raqam charity main jama karwa kar raseed court main jama karwane ka hukam dia.
Grounds
CDA ne aik case private party ke khalaf file kia .
Jiss main specific performance of contract ka matalba kia gia.
Yeh ke private party mutalaqa property family ke bahar sale nahi kar sakti .or waha per sirf clinic bna sakti hai etc
CDA High Court (Writ)main against faisla aane ke bawajood supreme court main Appeal main chali gai.
Supreme court ne qarar dia ke CDA ne khud Out of the family property transfer ki. Or mutalaqa officers ke khalaf koi karwai na ki gai.
Or un mamlaat main Court ka na sirf time zaia kia balke respondent ka bhi time zaia kia.
Or Supreme court of Pakistan specific order or rule ke tehat kisi bhi fake or frivolous Appeal or petition per special costs (fine) kar sakta hai.
Special cost aaid karne se pehle court ne aik moqa Dia CDA ko ke batain kio na ap per special costs aaid ki jai.
Jawab na aane per special costs aaid kar dia gia.
For more information call or Whatsapp+92-324-4010279
SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:
Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah
Mrs. Justice Ayesha A. Malik
CIVIL PETITION NO.3709 of 2022
[Against judgment dated 29.09.2022 passed by the Islamabad High Court
Islamabad in W.P. No.1978/2022]
0
Capital Development Authority, CDA,
through its Chairman, CDA, Islamabad
…Petitioner(s)
Versus
Ahmed Murtaza and another
…Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s)
: Mr. Muhammad Nazir Jawad, ASC
For the Respondent(s)
: Mr. Saqib Jillani, ASC
(via video link, Lahore)
Date of Hearing
: 02.11.2022
JUDGMENT
AYESHA A. MALIK, J.- The Petitioner, Capital
Development Authority (CDA), Islamabad, has impugned
judgment dated 29.09.2022 passed by the Islamabad High
Court, Islamabad (High Court) essentially on the ground that
plot No.12-H/2, G-8 Markaz, Islamabad measuring 500 sq. yds.
(disputed plot) was a non-transferable plot and could not have
been sold or transferred outside of the family of the original
allottee.
2.
Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the impugned
judgment failed to consider this fact and, in this context, failed
to consider the relevant provisions of the allotment letter
No.CDA/EM-27(1223)/83 dated 11.06.1983 (allotment letter)
as well as the lease agreement dated 18.06.1983 (lease
agreement). He further argued that in terms of the Islamabad
CP No.3709 of 2022
- 2 -
Land Disposal Regulation, 2005, community building and
facility plots that are to be used for educational purposes,
hospitals, maternity homes, or libraries cannot be transferred
as these plots are reserved for social welfare projects and only in
exceptional cases can these plots be transferred. The case of the
CDA is that the disputed plot was to be used for a clinic when it
was leased out to Dr. Major (Retd.) Bilqees Muhammad Din, the
original allottee. Learned counsel further stated that
Respondent No.1 filed a suit for specific performance of the
contract before the Civil Judge, Islamabad, against Respondent
No.2 for completion of the sale of the disputed plot. The suit was
decided, by way of a consent decree on 23.11.2018, in favour of
Respondent No.1 on the basis of which the disputed plot was
transferred to Respondent No.1. The Petitioner filed a petition
under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)
on 30.09.2022 before the trial court against judgment dated
23.11.2018. The petition was allowed on 19.04.2022 and
judgment and decree dated 23.11.2018
was set aside.
Respondent No.1 challenged the order of 19.04.2022 in a
constitutional petition which was accepted vide the impugned
judgment.
3.
On behalf of the Respondents, learned counsel
stated that the matter in issue has been decided by the High
Court in FAO No.3 of 2020 reported as Ahmed Murtaza v.
Naseera Fatima Sughra and 2 others (2021 CLC 400) wherein
Respondent No.1 challenged order dated 16.12.2019 passed by
the Civil Judge 1st Class (West) Islamabad whereby the objection
petition filed by Respondent No.2 was allowed and the decree
CP No.3709 of 2022
- 3 -
dated 23.11.2018 was declared as not executable. In the said
FAO, the merits of the case were considered and decided in
favour of Respondent No.1. So, the whole issue of transferability
of the disputed plot was considered and decided in favour of
Respondent No.1. CDA then challenged the same before this
Court, through C.P. No.3010 of 2021, only to withdraw the
same so as to avail appropriate remedy. Subsequently, CDA
challenged judgment dated 23.11.2018 before the Civil Judge
under Section 12(2) of the CPC. This petition was decided in its
favour on 19.04.2022 whereby the consent decree dated
23.11.2018 was set aside and the matter was reopened to be
decided afresh on its merits. Respondent
No.1 filed a
constitutional petition before the High Court which decided the
matter in his favour through the impugned judgment wherein
the High Court concluded that CDA failed to prove fraud,
misrepresentation, or want of jurisdiction in any manner and
that the CDA is bound by the judgment of the High Court,
rendered in the Ahmed Murtaza case (supra), wherein the same
issue was agitated and decided.
4.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at
length and find that the facts of the case speak volumes to the
matter in issue raised before us. Essentially, CDA claims that
the disputed plot was a non-transferable plot, which could not
have been transferred outside of the family members of the
original allottee, Dr. Major (Retd.) Bilqees Muhammad Din. The
allotment letter issued in favour of Dr. Major (Retd.) Bilqees
Muhammad Din provides that the plot is to be used for building
a clinic and that the plot is non-transferable outside the family
CP No.3709 of 2022
- 4 -
members being the wife, husband and unmarried children. The
lease agreement executed between CDA and Dr. Major (Retd.)
Bilqees Muhammad Din also provides that the disputed plot is
non-transferable outside the family members. Respondent No.1
filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell
dated 19.04.2016 against Respondent No.2, mainly stating that
he entered into an agreement to sell on 19.04.2016 with
Respondent No.2 for the sale of the disputed plot on which
Sughra Bilquis Memorial Hospital had been constructed and
that she was not performing her part of the obligation despite
the fact that he had done what he was required to do. As per
the compliance report filed by CDA in the said suit, it was
confirmed that initially the plot was allotted to Dr. Major (Retd.)
Bilqees Muhammad Din, however, the property was transferred
to
Respondent
No.2
vide CDA letter No.CDA/EM-
27(1223)/83/1059-6-1075 dated 11.03.2003 and confirmation
of ownership was issued in favour of Respondent No.2 on
03.10.2007. Therefore, for the purposes of transfer, the CDA
informed the Court that the disputed plot had been transferred
by them in favour of Respondent No.2. On the basis of this
report and the conceding statement made by the CDA, a
consent decree was issued on 23.11.2018 in favour of
Respondent No.1.
5.
An execution petition was filed by Respondent No.1,
in which, CDA filed its objections. These objections were allowed
on 16.12.2019 declaring judgment and decree dated 23.11.2018
as not executable. Against this order, FAO No.3 of 2020 was
filed by Respondent No.1 which was allowed on 30.12.2020
CP No.3709 of 2022
- 5 -
whereby order dated 16.12.2019 was set aside and the matter
was remanded to the Executing Court to execute judgment and
decree dated 23.11.2018. Against the order of the High Court,
CDA filed Civil Petition No.3010 of 2021 in this Court which was
withdrawn on 20.08.2021. These facts are admitted; however,
these facts have not been pleaded by the CDA in its petition
before us nor have they appended copies of the orders
pertaining to the objection petition filed against the execution of
judgment and decree dated 23.11.2018 or of the civil petition
filed before this Court. In this regard, we are of the opinion that
CDA has deliberately neglected to state these facts and instead
has just mentioned that it assailed some order before the High
Court in an FAO as well as before this Court and withdrew its
case on 20.08.2021 to seek appropriate remedy.
6.
We have examined the Ahmed Murtaza case (supra)
and the question before the Court in the said case was the
transfer of the disputed plot which was considered at length
and the Court concluded that no appeal was filed by the CDA
against judgment and decree dated 23.11.2018 as it was in
result of a consenting statement between the Respondents.
Thus, no basis for fraud was made out. The Court also held that
the CDA was a party to the suit and the trial court put a specific
query to the CDA with reference to the transfer of the disputed
property in favour of Respondent No.2 to which the CDA
confirmed that the disputed plot was transferred in the name of
Respondent No.2 vide its letter dated 11.03.2003. The CDA was
also asked whether this plot was under dispute before any court
of law to which they said that they were not aware of any such
CP No.3709 of 2022
- 6 -
case. Consequently, the trial court proceeded to decree the suit
for specific performance in favour of Respondent No.1 given that
the CDA, as per its record, admitted to having transferred the
disputed plot in favour of Respondent No.2. To our minds, the
matter in issue was decided on its merits in the Ahmed Murtaza
case (supra) which judgment, the CDA challenged only to
withdraw the matter from this Court in order to seek some other
appropriate remedy. Consequently, the CDA is bound by the
findings recorded in the Ahmed Murtaza case (supra) with
reference to the transfer of the disputed plot in favour of
Respondent No.2.
7.
The admitted position is that the disputed plot was
transferred from the original allottee/lessee, Dr. Major (Retd.)
Bilqees Muhammad Din by CDA in favour of Respondent No.2
vide letter
No.CDA/EM-27(1223)/83/1059-6-1075
dated
11.03.2003. We also note that the order of transfer dated
11.03.2003 clearly provides that CDA transferred the disputed
plot from the names of eleven persons to the name of
Respondent No.2. We asked the CDA who these eleven persons
were and we were informed that prior to the transfer in favour of
Respondent No.2, the disputed plot had been transferred in the
names of persons mentioned in its
letter No.CDA/EM-
27(1223)/83/1059-6-1075 dated 11.03.2003. The counsel also
admitted that these eleven persons were not specifically family
members of Dr. Major (Retd.) Bilqees
Muhammad Din.
Apparently, persons listed at Sr. Nos.1 to 3 are related to Dr.
Major (Retd.) Bilqees Muhammad Din, however, admittedly
none of the others are related to her. Hence, it transpires that
CP No.3709 of 2022
- 7 -
CDA allowed the transfer of the disputed plot to non-family
members, from time to time and only raised a dispute with
reference to the transfer in favour of Respondent No.2 and
Respondent No.1.
8.
We have heard the matter at great length and find
that this is a classic example of a litigant wasting the time of
this Court by filing frivolous litigation given that this matter
already stands decided by the High Court in the Ahmed Murtaza
case (supra). Furthermore, the dispute, if any, raised by the
CDA is based on their own conduct as the record shows that
they have themselves transferred the disputed plot outside the
family members of Dr. Major (Retd.) Bilqees Muhammad Din
repeatedly and yet chose to dispute the transfer in favour of
Respondent No.1 notwithstanding the earlier transfers made in
favour of different transferees. They have taken no action
against any officer, nor raised this issue before their own
governing body to highlight the fact that their own documents
and policy were not being followed by their officers. Instead,
they chose to litigate the matter and burdened the courts with
litigation which does not raise a question of law or fact in good
faith. We find that this kind of litigation being without merit and
basis is one an institution, such as the CDA, should not have
indulged in. A considerable amount of time has been consumed
in hearing this matter, which time admittedly could have
actually been consumed hearing other cases not to mention the
misrepresentation made by the CDA in failing to disclose the
Ahmed Murtaza case (supra). What is most disturbing is that
the CDA opted to pursue this matter before this Court against
CP No.3709 of 2022
- 8 -
the Respondents in whose favour there are two judgments dated
23.11.2018 and 30.12.2020. We also find that an institution,
such as the CDA, must take responsibility for its own decisions
and actions even where its officers have acted in contravention
of their policy and cannot expect that this Court should
interfere and correct their wrongs, particularly when the matter
has been litigated against and decided against them. This
tendency cannot be condoned and has to be denounced because
not only does it waste the time of this Court but it has also
wasted a considerable amount of time of the Respondents who
have been facing litigation pursued by the Petitioner since 2019
as they have been striving to have the transfer in favour of
Respondent
No.1 declared illegal when they themselves
transferred the disputed plot in favour of Respondent No.2 and
admittedly earlier in time, transferred the disputed plot to at
least eight different people, which was never challenged by
them.
9.
During the course of the case, we confronted the
Petitioner, CDA with these facts and gave them an opportunity
to explain why special costs should not be imposed upon them
for dragging the Respondents to Court unnecessarily and for
wasting the time and resources of this Court. The Petitioner was
confronted with the misstatements
in their pleadings
specifically the fact that they chose not to mention that they
had transferred the disputed plot in favour of Respondent No.2
vide
letter
No.CDA/EM-27(1223)/83/1059-6-1075
dated
11.03.2003 and that they had transferred the disputed plot in
favour of eight other persons prior to Respondent No.2. We also
CP No.3709 of 2022
- 9 -
confronted them with the fact that they failed to mention the
Ahmed Murtaza case (supra) and merely referred to it in passing
that FAO No.3 of 2020 was filed before the High Court which
was allowed vide judgment dated 31.12.2020. They neglected to
give details of this case and neglected to append the judgment,
which clearly shows that the intent was to mislead the Court.
10.
Rule A(3) of Order XXVIII of Part VI of the Supreme
Court Rules, 1980 (Rule) provides that this Court may impose
costs on a party who files a false or vexatious appeal or other
proceedings and thereby wastes the time of the Court. This
Court has imposed such costs, to curb frivolous litigation, in
the cases of Syed Iqbal Haider v. Federation of Pakistan (1998
SCMR 1318), Muhammad Akbar v. Major Tajjuddin (2007
SCMR 140), and Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Packages
Limited (2022 SCMR 634) for prolonging the agony of the
respondents and wasting the time of this Court which could
have been spent in resolving legitimate disputes.
11.
Under the circumstances, we are not inclined to
dismiss the petition simpliciter as we believe that such frivolous
litigation overburdens this Court with vexatious cases thereby
delaying and thus denying the rightful claim of access to justice
guaranteed under Article 9 of the Constitution. Such frivolous
litigation also impairs expeditious justice and offends Article
37(d) of the Principles of Policy under the Constitution. Court
time can be well spent on handling genuine cases as opposed to
pursuing cases which are vexatious and meritless on their face
and which have already been decided between the parties. The
Petitioner is a responsible public institution which is to work
CP No.3709 of 2022
- 10 -
and function for the benefit of the public and undeniably, the
same deliberately wasted time and resources of the Court which
itself runs on taxpayer’s money. It must be appreciated by CDA
that it is not the role of the courts to “fix” the internal
managerial shortcomings of the institution. CDA sought to bring
a matter of its own internal affairs into the Court, instead of
resolving the matter at its own end, for what only appears to be
an attempt to unduly emphasize on one transfer and ignore all
others. The Respondents, on the other hand, without any fault
on their part, have suffered long drawn periods of litigation.
13.
A display of such conduct by the Petitioner is in
clear violation of the law and cannot be ignored. The
circumstances warrant imposition of special costs to the tune of
Rs.500,000/- on the Petitioner. The aforementioned costs shall
be deposited in any approved charity. The deposit slip shall be
placed on record within one month of this order. In case of
failure, office shall put up the case before the Court for
necessary orders.
15.
Consequently, this Petition is dismissed and leave
refused.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Islamabad
02.11.2022
‘APPROVED FOR REPORTING’
No comments:
Post a Comment