Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 4088 2025 SLD 4088 = 2025 CLC 684
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 78446 of 2023, decided on 5th December, 2023.
Before Masud Abid Naqvi, J
Sh. Naveed Shahryar for Petitioner.

IJAZ AHMAD KHAN ---Petitioner

VERSUS

MUHAMMAD BOOTAY KHAN deceased through legal heirs and others --Respondents

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 12(2)

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: IX,1,181

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984

Section: 129(e)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 150

(a)    Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 12(2)---Fraud and misrepresentation---Applicant claiming no knowledge of decree being assailed---An application under S. 12(2), C.P.C., 1908, filed before the Appellate/District Court by a respondent (in decided appeal) was dismissed, against which dismissal revision was filed---Stance of the petitioner (applicant under S. 12(2) C.P.C.) was that he had no knowledge about the pendency of appeal as no notice/summon was served to him and neither he appeared before the Appellate/District Court nor appointed any counsel, hence, order and decree (passed in appeal) was result of fraud and mis-representation---Validity---Record contradicted said stance of the petitioner as his name was mentioned as respondent No.3 and his address was the same in (said decided)appeal as he had mentioned in his application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. and also in the present civil revision--Appellate/District Court issued notice to petitioner/applicant (being respondent) by adopting due process and even after publication of advertisement in newspaper but he did not appear before the Appellate / District Court and was ultimately proceeded against ex-parte and thereafter( on the basis of statements of the contesting parties), the appeal was accepted by modifying the judgment and decree of the Trial Court---All the parties to the suit and appeal were closely related to each other and close relatives of petitioner--- Hence, it could not be believed that petitioner was not aware of the proceedings in suit and appeal---Thus, the District Judge had rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner after properly discussing in detail the un-rebuttable facts of the case---No infirmity, legal or factual, had been pointed out in the impugned order---Revision was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.(b)    Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 12(2)---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Art. 181---Application under S. 12(2) C.P.C., 1908, filing of---Limitation---An application under S. 12(2) C.P.C., 1908 filed before the District Court by a respondent (in decided appeal) was dismissed, against which…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register