| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2008 SLG 1547 2008 SLD 1547 2008 SCMR 226 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Miscellaneous No.63, in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. Nil of 2007 in Civil Review Petition No.214 of 2006, decision dated: 29-10-2007
RANA BHAGWANDAS, ACTG. CJ
Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. Gulzarin Kayani, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous No.63, in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. Nil of 2007 in Civil Review Petition No.214 of 2006, decision dated: 29-10-2007
RANA BHAGWANDAS, ACTG. CJ
Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. Gulzarin Kayani, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents
Mst. SABIRAN BIBI and others
VS
AHMED KHAN and others
Law:
Section:
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---S. 12(2)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.185(3) & 188---Application for challenging the validity of a , decree or order on plea of fraud and misrepresentation---Maintainability---Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. was not entertainable after dismissal of petition for leave to appeal before Supreme Court and review application---If a point had not been raised at the hearing of said petition and not even at review stage before the Supreme Court, no new point of fact or law could be allowed to be urged in the proceedings under S.12(2), C.P.C. ---Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. appearing to be frivolous and vexatious in nature filed with intent to prolong the proceedings and to harass the respondents, appeal was dismissed awarding a token cost of Rs.5,000 to respondents for unnecessarily dragging them to the Court. ORDER RANA BHAGWANDAS, ACTG. CJ--- This appeal is directed against the office objections raised by the Institution Officer, returning the memo. of application under section '12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code to the appellants. 2. One of the grounds which found favour with the Institution Officer appears to be that an application under section 12(2), Civil Procedure Code would not be maintainable as judgment once pronounced by this Court cannot be added to or altered subsequently, and that it amounts to second review petition which would again be not entertainable within the contemplation of .Order XXVI, rule 9 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. 3. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the appellants while Mr. Gulzarin Kayani, learned Advocate Supreme Court has entered appearance for the respondents. 4. It is not denied at the Bar that in appeal, learned District Judge had allowed the respondents' appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the appellants. In civil revision, High Court affirmed and upheld the appeal Court judgment which was maintained by this Court in C.P.L.A. vide judgment, dated 11-9-2006. Review petition filed by the appellants met the similar fate on 26-4-2007. 5. Mr.…
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