The document discusses several court citations that relate to Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in Pakistan. The citations discuss the scope and application of S. 12(2) CPC, which allows a party to challenge a judgment, decree or order on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of jurisdiction. The summaries provide that S. 12(2) CPC is the appropriate remedy to challenge a decree obtained through fraud or misrepresentation. It also discusses that the fraud or misrepresentation must have occurred during the court proceedings, and that S. 12(2) cannot be used to challenge the merits of a case.
The document discusses several court citations that relate to Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in Pakistan. The citations discuss the scope and application of S. 12(2) CPC, which allows a party to challenge a judgment, decree or order on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of jurisdiction. The summaries provide that S. 12(2) CPC is the appropriate remedy to challenge a decree obtained through fraud or misrepresentation. It also discusses that the fraud or misrepresentation must have occurred during the court proceedings, and that S. 12(2) cannot be used to challenge the merits of a case.
The document discusses several court citations that relate to Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in Pakistan. The citations discuss the scope and application of S. 12(2) CPC, which allows a party to challenge a judgment, decree or order on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of jurisdiction. The summaries provide that S. 12(2) CPC is the appropriate remedy to challenge a decree obtained through fraud or misrepresentation. It also discusses that the fraud or misrepresentation must have occurred during the court proceedings, and that S. 12(2) cannot be used to challenge the merits of a case.
Citation Name : 2011  CLC  1927 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP Side
Appellant : Mst. ASMAT ARA Side Opponent : Mst. RUKHSANA SHAHEEN
S. 12 (2) - - - Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42- - - Suit for declaration- - - Allegation of fraud and misrepresentation- - - SCOPE of S.12 (2) , C.P.C.- - - Plaintiffs had based their claim of ownership on the basis of a private partition deed and also had challenged the decree in favour of the defendant under S.12 (2) , C.P.C.- - - Validity- - - Anybody feeling aggrieved of a judgment and decree on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction, had to file an application under S.12 (2) , C.P.C. before the court which had passed the final judgment and decree or order; S.12 (2) , C.P.C. then would bar filing of a separate suit in that regard- - - In presence of S.12 (2) , C.P.C., decree could not be challenged through a civil suit- - - Concurrent findings of two courts below, whereby suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed were based on unlawful and irregular exercise of jurisdiction, which had resulted into illegality- - - Judgments and decrees of two courts, were set aside, in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2011  MLD  1956 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP Side Appellant : Syed AMEER HUSSAIN SHAH Side Opponent : Syed DILBAR HUSSAIN SHAH S. 12 (2) - - - Judgment/decree challenged on ground of fraud- - - SCOPE - - - When fraud was committed by either of parties in proceedings of suit, then court under S. 12 (2) , C.P.C., had jurisdiction to decide such matter- - - Fraud not committed in court proceedings for obtaining a judgment could not be termed as fraud within purview of S. 12 (2) , C.P.C. Citation Name : 2010  CLC  1578 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Side Appellant : Mrs. AZRA SHABBIR Side Opponent : Mrs. REHANA KHATOON S.12 (2) - - - Setting aside of decree- - - Remedy under section 12 (2) , C.P.C.- - - SCOPE - - - Remedy provided under section 12 (2) , C.P.C. cannot be equated or treated at par to a remedy of review or revision. Citation Name : 2009  PLD  63 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Side Appellant : Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL CUSTODIAN OF ENEMY PROPERTY FOR PAKISTAN S. 12 (2) - - - Invocation of S.12 (2) , C.P.C.- - - SCOPE - - - Held, for invoking S.12 (2) , C.P.C. qua a judgment, decree or order, it was to be shown that the same was result of fraud, misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction- - - Where the material on record failed to indicate that there was any element of "fraud" or "misrepresentation" in the matter or there was any "want of jurisdiction" of the court, the provisions of S.11(2) , C.P.C. would not be attracted.
Citation Name : 2009  PLD  123 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD JAMEEL KHAN Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD ALI ZAKI KHAN S.12 (2) - - - Word "final" as appearing in S.12 (2) C.P.C.- - - SCOPE - - - Application for setting aside judgment and decree- - - Maintainability- - - Judgment in question was passed by High Court in exercise of original civil jurisdiction, which judgment was maintained by Division Bench of High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction and also by Supreme Court- - - Applicants had assailed the judgment before single Judge of High Court, as Trial Court- - - Validity- - - Word "final" as appearing in S.12 (2) C.P.C. had been defined as last in the series of judgment, decree or order which was no longer alterable by court passing that judgment, decree or order and had attained finality- - - In case of appeal, decree of Trial Court, except in exceptional cases, merged in the decree passed by appellate court and was capable of execution- - - Merger took place irrespective of fact whether decree of Trial Court was affirmed or reversed- - - Judgment passed by Division Bench of High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction was challenged but Supreme Court merely re- affirmed the judgment of appellate court by refusing its leave to appeal- - - Final judgment and decree was passed by Division Bench of High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction- - - Application under S.12 (2) C.P.C. filed in the Court of single Judge of High Court as Trial Court was not maintainable- - - Application was dismissed in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2008  PLD  591 SUPREME-COURT Side Appellant : Subedar SARDAR KHAN Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD IDREES S. 12 (2) - - - SCOPE of S.12 .(2) , C.P.C.- - - Decree could be set aside only on the ground stated in S.12 (2) , C.P.C.- - - Where no case of fraud or misrepresentation was made out and ground for setting aside the decree. was not at all a such ground as envisaged by S.12 (2) , C.P.C. but pertained to the merits of the case, application under S.12 (2) , C.P.C. was liable to be dismissed.
Citation Name : 2008  CLC  1385 Northern Areas Chief Court Side Appellant : CHIEF ENGINEER, N.A. P.W.D. GILGIT Side Opponent : Late SHAHEEN KHAN, CONTRACTOR through Legal Representatives S. 12 (2) - - - Challenging judgment and decree on plea of fraud, collusion and misrepresentation- - - SCOPE - - - Section 12 (2) , C.P.C. provides a remedy to a person affected by a decree obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or a decree was challengeable for want of jurisdiction and the plaintiff was precluded by rules from instituting a further suit in respect of any particular cause of action- - - Provisions of S.12 (2) , C.P.C. inspired one's judicial mind with the interpretation that the remedy under said section was confined to three points that the plaintiff must, to prove that the judgment, order or the decree had been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or validity of the same was challengeable for want of jurisdiction- - - Petitioner was obliged to prove that the fraud or misrepresentation had been committed by the opposite party in connection with the proceedings- - - Petitioner under S.12 (2) , C.P.C. must plead and prove that fraud or misrepresentation committed against him was out of his knowledge or sight and was concealed from him by the party himself or in collusion with any person or persons, so as to prevent the affected person to place his case before the court during course of proceedings in defence, otherwise a person could not be allowed to reopen the past and closed transaction in that regard.
Citation Name : 1993  MLD  1344 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Side Appellant : INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN Side Opponent : NATIONAL ENGINEERING WORKS Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - - - - Ss.12 (2) & 151- - - Application for setting aside judgment and decree on plea of fraud and misrepresentation- - - Applicant who was LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE of deceased defendant, had prayed that judgment and decree passed in favour of plaintiff should be set aside as same were obtained by fraud and misrepresentation- - - Main grievance of applicant was that he being LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE of deceased having not been impleaded in suit could not be bound by decree passed against defendant- - - Nothing was on record and no allegation was in affidavit of applicant to show that plaintiff was aware of existence of applicant and as such failed to implead him at relevant time- - Plaintiff, in circumstances, could not be said to have deliberately failed or avoided to implead applicant as a defendant in suit and was not guilty of any fraud or misrepresentation- - - In absence of prima facie proof of alleged fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining decree in suit, provisions of S.12 (2) , C.P.C., were not attracted- - - Contention of applicant that even if provisions of S.12 (2) , C.P.C. were not attracted, relief could be given under S.151, C.P.C., was repelled, because in presence of specific provision, applicant could not seek relief under general provisions of S.151, C.P.C.
Citation Name : 2010  SCMR  822 SUPREME-COURT Side Appellant : BASHIR AHMAD Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN S. 52 & O.XXII, R.1- - - LEGAL HEIR s, non- impleading of- - - Effect- - - Abatement does not take place, if LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE s of some party are not brought on record- - - Such LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE s automatically become party and bound by any decision of court.
Citation Name : 2008  PLD  10 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD YOUNUS KHAN Side Opponent : Kh. MUHAMMAD ISHAQ O. XXII, Rr. 3, 4 & O.I, R.10- - - Impleading of a party- - - Appeal had been filed against dead person and his LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE s were already on the record and the appellants had not impleaded them in line of respondents, though they did implead them in an appeal before High Court in an earlier round of litigation- - - Such LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE s could not be impleaded in the garb of application for substitution, that too after the prescribed period of limitation- - - Where an appeal or a suit was filed against a sole dead person, then neither Order XXII, Rr. 3 & 4 of C.P.C. was applicable nor O.I, R.10,C.P.C. was attracted because such institution was a nullity in the eye of law and could not be revived impleading the LEGAL HEIR s of the deceased.
Citation Name : 2007  SCMR  1193 SUPREME-COURT Side Appellant : Mst. LALAN BIBI and others Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD KHAN - - - - O. VIII, R.13- - - List of LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE s- - - Scope- - - Non- filing of such list- - - Effect- - - Defendant is under LEGAL obligation to file list of LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE s along with his written statement and to nominate a person to intimate court, of fact of death of defendant and to furnish court with necessary particulars and addresses of his LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE s and also to make application for tHEIR substitution in view of O.VIII, R.13 C.P.C.- - - Non- compliance of O.VIII, R.13, C.P.C. authorizes court to proceed with suit, notwithstanding death of such defendant- - - Even if LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE s of dead party are not impleaded in petition, the same would not be fatal to the proceedings. Citation Name : 2001  YLR  404 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Side Appellant : MUNSHI KHAN Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD SULEMAN Civil Procedure Code - - Order XXII OF C.P.C. DeAT h, Marriage and Insolvency OF Parties - - - - S. 42- - - Civil Procedure Code (V OF 1908), O.XXII, Rr.1 & 2- - - Suit for declarAT ion- - DeAT h OF one OF the defendants- - - AbAT ement OF suit- - - Two allottees/vendors OF plot in dispute, initially transferred the same in favour OF plaintiff through agreement OF sale- - - Plot was again transferred in favour OF two different transferees one after the other and both vendors made stAT ements in favour OF last transferee before the ESTAT E OF ficer and duly executed pro forma OF transfer OF plot in favour OF last transferee- - - One OF the vendors who subsequently died had already affirmed the transfer OF plot in favour OF last transferee who was in possession OF plot- - Original transferee filed suit against vendors/ defendants alleging thAT plot having been transferred to him in the ,first instance, subsequent two transfers should be declared as null and void against his rights- - - One OF the vendors/defendants who had already affirmed the transfer OF plot in favour OF last transferee having died during the pendency OF suit an applicAT ion was filed by last transferee to the effect thAT as the LEGAL REPRESENTAT IVE s OF the deceased defendant had NO t been brought on record after his deAT h within the prescribed period OF limitAT ion, the suit could be declared to have been abAT ed- - Deceased defendant having relinquished all his LEGAL rights vested in the plot in favour OF applicant/last transferee, after deAT h OF defendant, last transferee would be deemed to represent the interest OF the deceased in respect OF plot since the plot could NO t be inherited by LEGAL heirs OF the deceased defendant in succession due to the transfer in favour OF last transferee, question OF bringing on record LEGAL REPRESENTAT IVE s OF the deceased defendant would NO t arise and suit would NO t abAT e for NO n- filing OF applicAT ion in TIME for bringing on record the LEGAL REPRESENTAT IVE s OF the deceased defendant.
Citation Name : 1986  CLC  1592 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Side Appellant : INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN Side Opponent : ROQAIYA BEGUM Code of Civil Procedure 1908 S. 2(11)- - LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE s- - Im pleading of- - If person against whom claim could be made dies before institution of suit; suit, held, could be filed for satisfaction of such claim, against those who were in possession of ESTATE or property of deceased or represent same- Where however, defendant dies during pendency of suit, his LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE s could be joined as defendants- - Decree could be passed or executed against LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE to extent of deceased's property in his possession- - LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE could be charged with liability only if property of deceased had come in his hand and he had NO t unduly disposed of or applied such property.
Citation Name : 1972  PLD  90 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD YUSUF Side Opponent : GUL MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS Code of Civil Procedure 1908 S. 96- - - Appeal- - - Persons competent to file. As a general rule NO one can appeal from a decree, unless he was a party to the action or was treated as such on is a LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE of a party or unless his right in the ESTATE or title or interest is apparent on the face of the record.
1996 P L C CS 433 - Statutory Rules National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Services Rules Were First Promulgated in Year 1973 and Subsequently in Year 1980 Rules of 1980
2000 S C M R 1321 -Dismissal From Service---Regular Inquiry Not Held---Service Tribunal Had Rightly Concluded That Dismissal of Civil Servant From Service and Subsequent Reduction in Punishment Were Violative of Dictum
1996 S C M 8413 - IRREGULAR Appointment Service Tribunal Having Re Instated Civil Servant Could Not Be Deemed To Have Committed Any Illegality or Irregularity
1996 S C M R 1185 - Rule of Good Governance Demand That The Benefit of Such Judgment by Service Tribunal-Supreme Court Be Extended To Other Civil Servants Who May Not Be Parties To The Litigation
1998 P L C CS 221 - Constitutional Petition - Employee of Statutory Body - Termination of Service Without Show-Cause Notice and Without Affording Opportunity of Being Heard