| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2010 SLG 1197 2010 SLD 1197 2010 YLR 38 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 1886 of 2009, decided on 26-10-2009.
IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE
Mirza Hafeezur Rehman for Petitioner.
Civil Revision No. 1886 of 2009, decided on 26-10-2009.
IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE
Mirza Hafeezur Rehman for Petitioner.
NADEEM AJMAL
VS
MUHAMMAD HASSAN
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 12(2),115
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----Ss.12(2) & 115---Entertainment of application under S.12(2), C.P.C.---Validity-Valuable rights of parties were involved---No prejudice had been caused to the petitioner in view of the fact that operation of the and decree had been suspended for the time being and matter of proof of fraud was yet to be determined after recording of evidence---Serious questions regarding authenticity of signatures and documents and the circumstances in which suit was decreed raised serious doubts---Matter required recording of evidence to reach a just and logical conclusion---Petition was dismiss ed. 1999 SCMR 196 rel. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE:---.--- This petition is directed against order dated 6-6-2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Okara, and judgment dated 30-6-2009, passed by Additional District Judge, Okara. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for partition on 12-2-2002. The petitioner/respondent No.2 was allegedly served, who filed a written statement. Consequently issues were framed and after recording of evidence the learned trial Court passed a preliminary decree on 30-1-2006. Later, a final decree was passed on 28-6-2006. At this stage an application under section 12(2) C.P.C. was filed on behalf of respondent No.2 on 4-9-2006. The assertions made in support of the application were that the respondent neither engaged a lawyer nor did he sign a power of attorney or the written statement. After conducting a preliminary inquiry the learned Civil Judge framed issues. Further, he proceeded to suspend operation of the judgment and decree dated 28-6-2006. 3. Aggrieved of the aforesaid order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Okara. The said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 30-6-2009. 4. The two main points argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner before me are that in the first place the order passed by the learned trial Court was a non-speaking order insofar as no reasons were recorded for framing of issues or suspension of the judgment and decree. The learned counsel further argued that in the application under section…
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