It is well settled principle of law that fraud vitiates even the most solemn transaction. Any transaction based on fraud would be void. Limitation does not run against void transaction. Mere efflux of time did not extinguish the right of any party. Notwithstanding the bar of limitation, the matter can be considered on merit so as not to allow fraud to perpetuate.
Now the question arises that after repeal of the Act, 1957 and the Act, 1958 through the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 [Act XIV of 1975], bar of the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to call in question of the character of property and its alienation by the settlement Authority existed or not?
orders passed by the Settlement Authorities. 38. The maxim “Ubi jus ibi remedium” (wherever there is a right, there is a remedy), is a fundamental principle of law. By virtue of section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 granted general jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature unless the jurisdiction of the Court is barred. Although said Section indicates that Civil Courts cannot try suits in respect of which their jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly barred under any law, but proceedings challenged as coram-non-judice are not covered by the exceptions contained in it.
No doubt Section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 (Act XLVII of 1958) and the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation), Act 1958 (Act XXVII of 1958) and Section 41 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957 (Act XII of 1957), bar the jurisdiction of Civil & Revenue Courts wherein it was provided that if any person was aggrieved of any action or decision of Settlement Authority or Evacuee Authority, he had remedy of appeal, revision etc. and Civil & Revenue Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain said matters.
Regular Second Appeal No.56 of 2005.
Safdar Yar Khan, etc. Versus Mohammad Iqbal Khan, etc.
Date of hearing:
23.02.2023.
0 Comments