| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 115 2021 SLD 115 2021 CLC 76 |
Lahore High Court
W.P. No. 9328 of 2013 and C.M. No. 4 of 2020, decision Dated: 6-11-2020, hearing Date : 6-11-2020.
AYESHA A. MALIK, JUSTICE
Chaudhry Sadaqat Ali for
Respondents Nos.7, 8 and 9. Barrister Haris Azmat, Barrister Maryam Hayat and Muhammad Faizan Azhar for
Respondents Nos.10 of 12. Sheikh Naveed Shaharyar for
Respondent No.11.
W.P. No. 9328 of 2013 and C.M. No. 4 of 2020, decision Dated: 6-11-2020, hearing Date : 6-11-2020.
AYESHA A. MALIK, JUSTICE
Chaudhry Sadaqat Ali for
Respondents Nos.7, 8 and 9. Barrister Haris Azmat, Barrister Maryam Hayat and Muhammad Faizan Azhar for
Respondents Nos.10 of 12. Sheikh Naveed Shaharyar for
Respondent No.11.
SYED ASHFAQ ALI SHAH
VS
MAQTOOL AKHTAR (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS AND OTHERS
Law: Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980
Section: 12(2)
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----S.12(2)---Bar to further suit---Element of fraud---Scope---Respondent filed suit for declaration with permanent injunction against the petitioner wherein he prayed for an order declaring him owner in possession of the suit property---Suit was decreed ex-parte---Respondent, thereafter, sold the property to purchasers moved application for setting aside the ex-parte decree, which was allowed on the conceding statement of respondent---Suit was heard and the same was withdrawn by respondent---Purchasers after attaining knowledge of the withdrawal of suit filed application under S.12(2), C.P.C.---Trial Court while concluding that the respondent could not have made any conceding statement as he had no proprietary rights in the suit property allowed the application under S.12(2), C.P.C. and the suit was deemed to be pending where the respondent was directed to implead relevant parties for the matter to be decided on its merits---Appellate Court concluded that there was a collusive effort by respondent and the petitioner, hence the application was rightly allowed---Validity---High court observed that both the courts below had duly considered the record and the evidence from which the element of the fraud was evident---No case for interference was made out---Constitutional petition was dismissed.
----S.12(2)---Bar to further suit---Element of fraud---Scope---Respondent filed suit for declaration with permanent injunction against the petitioner wherein he prayed for an order declaring him owner in possession of the suit property---Suit was decreed ex-parte---Respondent, thereafter, sold the property to purchasers moved application for setting aside the ex-parte decree, which was allowed on the conceding statement of respondent---Suit was heard and the same was withdrawn by respondent---Purchasers after attaining knowledge of the withdrawal of suit filed application under S.12(2), C.P.C.---Trial Court while concluding that the respondent could not have made any conceding statement as he had no proprietary rights in the suit property allowed the application under S.12(2), C.P.C. and the suit was deemed to be pending where the respondent was directed to implead relevant parties for the matter to be decided on its merits---Appellate Court concluded that there was a collusive effort by respondent and the petitioner, hence the application was rightly allowed---Validity---High court observed that both the courts below had duly considered the record and the evidence from which the element of the fraud was evident---No case for interference was made out---Constitutional petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
AYESHA A. MALIK, JUSTICE:---.---
Through this Petition, the Petitioner has impugned order dated 27.7.2010 passed by Respondent No.6, Civil Judge, Gujranwala and judgment 8.6.2012 passed by Respondent No.5, Additional District Judge, Gujranwala.
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