Summary: When the record available on file is sufficient to establish that provision of section 12(2) are not frame issues and record evidence, then application under section 12(2) of Civil Procedure Code could be dismissed by analyzing the evidence available on record.

Summary: Art. 199, Constitution of Pakistan. Relevancy of Application under section 12(2). C.P.C.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 12(2) & O.XIV---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 107---Registration Act (XVI of1908), Ss. 17(d) & 49---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.28---Petitioner was aggrieved of orderpassed by two courts below whereby judgment and decree passed in his favour was set aside byTrial Court in exercise of powers under S.12(2), C.P.C. and order was maintained by LowerAppellate Court---Validity---Lease agreement in question was not registered and such agreementfor purpose of tenure was to be binding upon initially for a period of 11 months whereafterrelationship between parties was to be regulated in terms of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882---Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court failed to consider the case in view of S.107 ofTransfer of Property Act, 1882 read with Ss.17(d) & 49 of Registration Act, 1908 as well as S.28of Contract Act, 1872---Trial Court without framing issues and providing opportunity to partieswith regard to legal and factual aspects related to lease in question decided application underS.12(2), C.P.C. filed by respondents---High Court set aside the orders passed under S.12(2),C.P.C. as same required determination by Trial Court accordingly---High Court remanded thematter to Trial Court for decision afresh---Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Summary: (a) Service Law – Recruitment Process and Advertisement Criteria: ----Merit and Area-Specific Recruitment Criteria---Petitioners applied for Elementary School Teacher (EST) BPS-14 positions specifically advertised for the Zian Hard Area, District Astore---After the recruitment process, Zian Hard Area was merged with UC Qamri, affecting the petitioners' legitimate expectations under the original advertisement---Held, recruitment must adhere strictly to the terms of the advertisement, and any subsequent changes cannot prejudice the rights of candidates who fulfilled the advertised criteria. (b) Maintainability of Review Petition – Locus Standi of Third Parties: ----Right to File Review Petition---Review Petition was filed by strangers (respondents No. 1-8) who were not original parties to the Writ Petition No. 92/2016---Court held that third parties who were not part of the original proceedings cannot invoke review jurisdiction unless they demonstrate a direct and substantial interest in the matter---Strangers lacked locus standi to file the Review Petition. (c) Conversion of Writ Petition into Application Under Section 12(2) CPC: ----Jurisdictional Irregularity---Learned Chief Court converted the Review Petition into an application under Section 12(2) of the CPC, which is applicable for fraud or misrepresentation in judicial proceedings---Court held that no elements of fraud or misrepresentation were established, rendering the conversion legally unsustainable. (d) Principle of Natural Justice – Protection Against Prejudice: ----Fair Opportunity and Legitimate Expectation---Petitioners were entitled to be considered based on the original recruitment criteria (Zian Hard Area-specific)---The subsequent merger with UC Qamri and the allowance of strangers to challenge the original judgment violated the Principles of Natural Justice and legitimate expectation doctrine. (e) Scope of Review Jurisdiction – Limited Grounds: ----Errors Apparent on the Face of Record---Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record---No substantial error or misrepresentation was pointed out in the original judgment dated 09.09.2016 by the Division Bench of the Chief Court. ----Disposition: Appeal allowed. The impugned order dated 01.03.2017 in Review Petition No. 281/2016 passed by the Chief Court was set aside. The order dated 09.09.2016 in Writ Petition No. 92/2016 was restored and maintained. ----Cited Case: 1987 CLC 1911 (cited in support of locus standi principles in review jurisdiction).

Summary: Article 199 of the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973... Exparte decree; section 12(2) of CPC: Article 164 of the Limitation Act, 1908--- Petioners appeared before the trail court, submitted their written statement, participated in the proceeding and thereafter disappeared. Petition was held to be time barred under article 164 of the Limitation Act, 1908, thus the petitioners are not entitled for any discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973

Summary: If once a civil suit was decreed on basis of compromise through their special attorney by petitioners there challenging the same u/s 12(2) of C.P.C by them through another attorney, that too is non of previous is bound by rule of estoppel. Application u/s 12(2) C.P.C rightly dismissed without recording evidence.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ---Section 12(2); Applications challenging decrees—Grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, and lack of jurisdiction Petitioners challenged the validity of a decree on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, and want of jurisdiction—Court held that the petitioners had knowledge of the suit and had participated in the proceedings—The plea of fraud and misrepresentation was unsubstantiated, and the application under Section 12(2) was deemed not maintainable. (b) Partition of Joint Property—Customary Settlements: ---Family and tribal agreements on property distribution Court acknowledged the long-standing possession of the property in question by the respondents since 1998 following a partition agreement—Petitioners’ challenge to the respondents’ ownership was rejected as it contradicted established possession and previous admissions in written statements. (c) Concurrent Findings of Lower Courts: ---Judicial review—Scope of interference Court reiterated that concurrent findings of three courts below will not be disturbed unless a clear legal or procedural violation is evident—No such infirmity or illegality was identified in the present case. (d) Administration of Justice—Finality of Judgments: ---Repeated litigation Court observed that the petitioners repeatedly challenged the decree in different courts, despite having participated in earlier proceedings—Such conduct was considered an abuse of judicial process aimed at protracting litigation. ----Disposition: Appeal dismissed—Impugned judgment of the Chief Court dated 06.12.2016 and concurrent findings of lower courts upheld—Petitioners’ application under Section 12(2) CPC was dismissed as not maintainable.

Summary: The case pertained to an application filed under Section 12(2) of The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) challenging a judgment and decree from 1994, alleging that it was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation with the connivance of the petitioners' counsel.The essential facts of the case were that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, Zulfiqar Hussain, was a party to the original lawsuit but had not appointed Ch. Ejaz Hussain, Advocate, as his counsel nor appeared before the court when the 1994 judgment was passed.The petitioners argued that the dismissal of their application by the learned Additional District Judge was unwarranted and done in a cursory manner without framing any issues.Upon reviewing the case, the judge found that the respondents had initiated a lawsuit for separate possession through partition, naming the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners as a defendant. The suit was initially dismissed but later appealed, and a judgment was passed in 1994 based on recorded statements of the parties.The record indicated that on the date of recording the statements, Ch. Ejaz Hussain, Advocate, representing the petitioners' father, recorded his statement along with the respondents, signifying a compromise. The petitioners argued that their father had only appointed Malik Mulazim Hussain, Advocate, as his counsel and, therefore, Ch. Ejaz Hussain's statement should not bind them.However, the judge cited Order III of CPC, which allows a pleader duly appointed by a person to delegate their powers to another pleader. Therefore, Ch. Ejaz Hussain, Advocate, was deemed a duly appointed counsel, and his statement was binding on the petitioners.Additionally, the judge referred to Article 129(e) of The Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, which presumes the truth of judicial proceedings. Hence, the petitioners were bound by their counsel's statement unless there were restrictions in the power of attorney.The judge criticized the practice of litigants attempting to backtrack from statements made during court proceedings for ulterior motives and noted that such behavior eroded trust in the judicial process.Ultimately, the judge dismissed the petition as frivolous, stating that the application was an attempt to stifle the court's process and undermine the sanctity of judicial proceedings. The petitioners were ordered to pay costs of Rs. 50,000 within a fortnight, and failure to do so would result in recovery as arrears of land revenue in accordance with the law.

Summary: Application under Section 12(2) read with Order 9 rule 13 CPC filed by the petitioner/Board. respondent No.2 appeared in Secondary School Certificate examination. grounds of fraud, misrepresentation and absence of jurisdiction can be agitated and no ground beyond the same can be allowed. This bar of jurisdiction of court to entertain a dispute is not available against proceedings in the court where any order passed by any authority is corum non judice, beyond jurisdiction or without lawful authority and not based on proper exercise of jurisdiction or infringes rights of any person ----- The petitioner Board changed the name of respondent No.2 but refused to change his date of birth.Respondent No.2 filed a lawsuit for a declaration and mandatory injunction to change his date of birth.The suit was decreed ex-parte by the Civil Judge, Sheikhupura.The petitioner/Board filed an application to set aside the ex-parte judgment, which was granted by the trial court.Respondent No.2 filed a revision against the trial court's order, which was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura.The petitioner Board challenged the Additional District Judge's order through the constitutional petition.The petitioner claimed that the ex-parte judgment was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation.The respondent argued that the petitioner was duly served in the case and that the court had jurisdiction to proceed.The court concluded that the petitioner did not provide evidence of fraud or misrepresentation.Sections 29 and 31 of the Punjab Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1976, were cited as potentially limiting the court's jurisdiction.The court referenced several judgments to conclude that the civil courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes if the rights of any party are infringed.The court found that the bar on jurisdiction under Sections 29 and 31 was not absolute, and the objection should have been raised earlier.The court did not find merit in the petition's claim that the case was not made on merits.The court emphasized that applications under Section 12(2) CPC are limited to the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, and lack of jurisdiction, and no other grounds could be considered.As a result, the court dismissed the petition.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 12(2)---Application under S.12(2), C.P.C.---Forum---Scope---Application under S.12(2),C.P.C. would lie to the Court which passed the final judgment---Application under S.12(2),C.P.C was to be filed before a court which was last in series except where an appeal, revision orleave to appeal was dismissed on any ground except merit---Where decree/order of a forumbelow had been affirmed by the higher forum on merit both on point of fact and law then samewould merge into the decree of higher forum---Said decree/order of higher forum would be finalfor the purpose of S.12(2), C.P.C.---If Supreme Court had merely affirmed the judgment or orderof High Court by refusing leave to appeal then final judgment in terms of S.12(2), C.P.C. wouldbe that of the High Court and not of Supreme Court---If Supreme Court had reversed thejudgment of High Court and recorded findings on question of fact or law contrary to what washeld by the High Court then final judgment or order would be of Supreme Court for the purposeof S.12(2), C.P.C.---Impugned judgment and decree was assailed in appeal and appellate Courthad affirmed the same on merits both of fact and law involved therein---Judgment and decreewhich attained the status of final decree/order in terms of S.12(2), C.P.C. was that of appellateCourt---Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. should have been filed before the appellate Court---No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned judgment and decree passed bythe Appellate Court---Revision was dismissed in circumstances.PLD 1995 SC 564; PLD 2002 SC 391; PLD 2009 Kar. 123; 1983 CLC 1948; 2012 CLC1897 and PLD 2010 SC 580 ref.PLD 2013 SC 478 rel.(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 12(2)---'Final'---Meaning.