Case Details

Citation(s)
1993 SLG 617 1993 SLD 617 1993 SCMR 662
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.1277 of 1990, decision dated: 4-03-1993, hearing DATE : 15-12-1992. (On appeal from the judgment, dated 4-10-1989, of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, passed in C.M. NO-2/88 in C.R. No.19/D of 1988/BWP)
NASIM HASAN SHAH, SAAD SAOOD, JAN AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, JJ

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

GHULAM MUHAMMAD ,

M. AHMAD KHAN and 6 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--S. 12(2)---Leave to appeal was granted to examine contentions, firstly that four respondents were not party to the suit, out of which the revision had arisen and, therefore, the application under S.12(2) filed by them was not competent; secondly the allegations of misrepresentation and fraud could be resolved properly only after framing issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective pleas, but the High Court did not follow that procedure and dealt with the case summarily, which did not satisfy the requirements of justice, and vitiated the entire proceedings. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.12(2)---Persons not party to the suit can also file application under S.12(2), C.P.C. Ch. Jalal Din v. Mst. Asghari Begum and others 1984 SCMR 586 and Abdur Rauf and others v. Abdur Rahim Khan PLD 1982 Pesh. 172 ref. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ---S. l(2)--purpose and object of 5.12(2), C.P.C.---Validity of and decree obtained by fraud and misrepresentation can be assailed through an application to the Court, which passed the final , decree, order and not by a separate suit ---Where respondents placed on the High Court file an affidavit in support application under S.12(2), C.P.C. but the appellant did not file any reply to the application controverting the facts stated therein, High Court had no need to frame the issues---Had the appellant filed a counter-affidavit, he could well request the Court for permission to cross­ examine the respondents and lead other evidence to rebut the contents of the affidavit---High Court, therefore, was right in relying upon the respondents' affida6t and procedure so adopted was unexceptionable. Before the amendment of section 12, C.P.C. and incorporation of subsection (2) therein, the validity of , decree or order procured by practising fraud and misrepresentation, could be challenged through a suit, the availing of this remedy was quite cumbersome. The institution of the suit resulted in a fresh round of litigation between the parties or between the persons adversely affected by such decree and the decree-holder. Such suit was not necessarily…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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