Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 12(2),96,114,16,18,19,20,13

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42,54

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.12(2)---Judgment, decree and order, setting aside of---Principle---Judgment, decree or order can be annulled by the Court, who passed the same, if it is the product of fraud, misrepresentation or coram non judice. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 12 (2), 96, 114, O.V, Rr. 16, 18, 19, 20 O.IX, R.13---Ex-parte and decree, setting aside of---Remedy---Service to respondents-defendantss-plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and injunction claiming to be owners in possession of suit land---Ex-parte and decree in favour of petitioners-plaintiffs was set aside concurrently by Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court in exercise of powers under S.12(2), C.P.C.---Validity---Several remedies are available to an aggrieved person against ex-parte decree out of which first can be application under O.IX, R.13, C.P.C. second a review application under S.114, C.P.C., third appeal under S.96, C.P.C. and fourth application under S.12(2), C.P.C., when decree is product of fraud, misrepresentation and coram non judice---Suitor was to opt any legal action to enforce any right and or invoke a remedy to set right a wrong or to vindicate an injury---Suitor has to elect and or choose from amongst host of actions or remedies available under law-defendants, in the present cases, opted to move application under S.12(2), C.P.C. with assertion that they were proceeded ex-parte on account of fake and faulty service reports---Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. was not decided summarily rather fate of the case was determined after framing of necessary issues and recording of evidence of both the sides---Both the sides were conscious of the controversy who produced their evidence which was appraised by Courts below in a beneficent manner---Glaring flaws in mode of service were floating on the surface of record which were sufficient to erode validity of ex-parte and decree---High Court declined to interfere in order passed by two Courts below---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. Lal Din and another v. Muhammad Ibrahim 1993 SCMR 710; Sain v. Government of N.-W.F.P.…

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