Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 12(2), 35(1)(i), (ii) & (iii), 35-B

Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973

Section: 10-A

 Summary The Islamabad High Court held that a litigant cannot obtain or retain an ex-parte eviction order by concealing material facts and excluding the true owner from litigation. Since the petitioner never challenged the registered sale deed nor sought specific performance of the agreement to sell, his claim lacked legal foundation. The Court declared the litigation frivolous and abusive, upheld the setting aside of the eviction order under Section 12(2) CPC, and awarded actual litigation costs to compensate the successful parties and discourage abuse of judicial process. Tagline Courts will not protect rights obtained through fraud, concealment, or abuse of process; frivolous litigation attracts actual litigation costs under Sections 35 and 35-B CPC. ORDER; ARBAB MUHAMMAD TAHIR, J:- Through the instant writ petition, petitioner namely Muhammad Moinuddin Khan impugns orders dated 07.04.2018 and 27.11.2018 passed by the learned Rent Controller and the learned District Judge Islamabad (West) respectively whereby application under Section 12(2) CPC filed by respondent No. 3 namely Jamshed Khan against ex-parte eviction order dated 14.10.2011 in favour of petitioner and against respondent No. 4 namely Yashir Shahzad (since proceeded ex-parte) was accepted, ex-parte eviction order was set aside, the execution petition was dismissed and revision petition was dismissed.   Vide order-in-original dated 07.04.2018, application under section 12 (2) CPC filed by respondent No. 3 Jamshed Khan was accepted by observing as under:- “11. Admittedly, the petitioner is in possession of shops i.e. demised premises. Petitioner has produced the sale deed of the shops executed in his favour by Abdul Khaliq Zafar on 20.04.2011 as Ex. A3, which prima facie establish that the petitioner is the owner of shops i.e. demised premises. Petitioner has also produced previous owner namely Abdul Khaliq Zafar in support of his version. It is evident that Abdul Khaliq Zafar also deposed that demised premises shops were sold out to the petitioner and petitioner is occupying the same. Resultantly, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner. ”   In revision…