| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLG 811 1992 SLD 811 1992 SCMR 2184 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.114 of 1992, decision dated: 3rd June, 1992(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 25-5-1991 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan passed in W.P. No.126/91)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.AND WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Appeal No.114 of 1992, decision dated: 3rd June, 1992(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 25-5-1991 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan passed in W.P. No.126/91)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.AND WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
ALLAH WASAYA and 5 others
IRSHAD AHMAD and 4 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--S.12(2)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether it was not on facts admittedly a case falling under S.12(2), Civil Procedure Code 1908, as held by High Court on account of questions of fact involved therein. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--O. XXII, R.3---Plaintiffs' failure to bring legal representatives of deceased defendant on record---Effect---Plaintiffs, although were required to apply to bring on record legal representatives of deceased defendant, yet their failure to do so was no longer fatal to the suit for when proceedings were continued against a dead person, decree could be .passed against him, notwithstanding his death during pendency of suit ---Non-impleading of legal representatives of' deceased defendant thus, could not legally hamper progress of suit---Heirs of deceased defendant, however, had equal responsibility to have brought factum of death of deceased to the notice of Court with request for bringing in his legal representatives on record. (c) Fraud-- ------Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)---Fraud---Meaning, scope and import of---Proof---Fraud means and includes, inter alia, the suggestion as a fact of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it, to be true, and the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact... Plaintiffs (decree-holders) had neither misstated any fact nor concealed any thing from the Court to obtain impugned decree---No evidence was available to show that decree in question had been obtained by practising fraud on Court although burden heavily lay on defendants to establish that fraud had in fact been practised on Court in obtaining impugned decree.---[Words and phrases]. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-- ----S. 12(2)---Validity of decree---Decree in question having been passed- by Court after contest, on basis of admissions and confessions made by respective parties same would not amount to decree on basis of compromise---Such decree could not be assailed under provision of S.12(2) Civil Procedure Code, 1908. JUDGMENT WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Allah Wasaya and others,…
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