Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 526 2018 SLD 526 2018 CLC 497
Peshawar High Court
W.P. No. 609-M of 2017, decided & hearing on 10-08-2017.
MUHAMMAD NASIR MEHFOOZ, JUSTICE
Sabitullah Khan for Petitioner. M. Amin Khan and Akhtar Munir Khan for
Respondents.

MST. RASHIDA BEGUM AND 3 OTHERS

VS

HABIB UR RAHMAN AND 10 OTHERS

Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 12(2) & O. VII, R. 11---Application for setting aside compromise decree---Allegation of fraud and misrepresentation---Remedy availed before wrong forum---Limitation---Condonation of delay---Scope---Applicability of O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. on application under S.12(2)---Contention of applicants was that impugned decree was obtained on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation---Application for setting aside of decree was dismissed under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.---Appeal---Maintainability---Order for dismissal of application under S.12(2), C.P.C. was not appealable---Petitioners had wrongly challenged the order of Trial Court in civil appeal which was dismissed---If wrong remedy was availed by any party then delay occurring in availing the said remedy was not condonable---Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. was filed after ten years---Applicants had sold property from the suit land which fell into their share as a result of compromise decree---Where contentions raised in an application under S.12(2), C.P.C. did not inspire confidence and no material grounds of fraud and misrepresentation existed, then same should be dismissed without recording of evidence---Proceedings of application under S.12(2), C.P.C. were not essentially of suit but were the same as in a suit with the only exception that after its acceptance the original suit/plaint would revive---Conditions applicable to the plaint in application under S.12(2), C.P.C. were different from that of suit but provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 were mutatis mutandis applicable---No fraud and misrepresentation had been committed while obtaining the impugned decree; contents of application did not contain specific allegations of fraud and certificate appended with the revision petition was neither signed by any one of the parties or their counsel---Petitioners could not approbate and reprobate in the same series of litigation---Courts below had rightly dismissed the application for setting aside the decree without recording of evidence---No infirmity had been pointed out in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below---Constitutional petition was dismissed in…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492