Case Details

Citation(s)
1994 SLD 756 = 1994 CLC 1044
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 9048 of 1992, decided on 11th November, 1992.
Presented By: Before Irshad Hasan Khan, J
Ch. Nabi Ahmad Cheema for Petitioners.

Mst. ZUBAIDA BEGUM---Petitioner

VERSUS

Mst. IRSHAD BIBI---Respondent

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 12 (2)

  Civil procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.12 (2) ---Challenging validity of judgment, decree or order on plea of fraud---Every Court or Tribunal had inherent jurisdiction under S. 12(2), C.P.C. to rescind or, recall a void order passed by itself if same was obtained through fraud---Stranger to proceedings could also file an objection petition if he was aggrieved with of r 9f Court or could file application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. to recall or review order allegedly obtained by fraud. Waiver--- ---- Once litigant had opted to avail a particular remedy, other remedies would be deemed to have been waived. FA. Khan v. The Government of Pakistan PLD 1964 SC 520; Mir Salah a-Din v. Qazi Zaheer-ud-Din PLD 1988 SC 221 and Mst. Fehmida Begum Muhammad Khalid and another 1992 SCMR 1908 ref. Ch. Nabi Ahmad Cheema for Petitioners. Date of hearing: 11th November, 1992 ORDER This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, calls in question the order dated 4-5-1991 passed by the, learned Civil Judge, Lahore, whereby the plaint in a declaratory suit filed try the petitioners under Order V1I, Rule 11, C.P.C. was rejected, 2 Biriefly, the facts are that the petitioners' , predecessor-in-interest claiming to be the owner of Property No. S-50-R-47, Lakhshami Mansion, Hall Road, Lahore, filed a suit for declaration challenging therein the order dated 8-1-1986 of the learned Rent   Controller directing eviction of respondent No.2 herein from the property in dispute. It is stated that the petitioners were also impleaded as party to the suit during its pendency. The petitioners also filed objection petition under Order XXI read with rules 97 and 100, C.P.C., but the same was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 2-2-1988. The petitioners failed to challenge that order and instead filed a declaratory suit but the plaint was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since the learned Rent Controller refused to exercise his lawful authority vide order dated 2-2-1988 dismissing the objection petition filed by the petitioner, he had no option but to…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register