Summary: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)------S. 12(2)--Fraud and misrepresentation--Decree--Challenged to--Question of--Jurisdiction--Validity--If a decree or order or judgment is obtained by fraud misrepresentation or wherequestion of jurisdiction has arisen such order, decree or judgment shall be challenged through anapplication to the Court which passed the same and no other suit shall lie. [Pp. 112 & 114] A &CPLD 2013 SC 478, ref.Word and Phrases------Final--Defines--It means the last in series of judgment, decree or order, which may have beenpassed--It can also mean that which is no longer further alterable and which has acquired finality.

Summary: The applicant claimed to be the owner and landlord of a building and alleged that the decree holder had obtained a money decree against judgment debtors. The execution process involved attaching the goods in the shops and subsequently transferring tenancy rights to the decree holder. The applicant invoked Section 12(2) CPC, arguing that the impugned order was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. The decree holder's stance was that there was no fraud or misrepresentation, and the applicant had been properly served with notices throughout the proceedings. The decree holder argued that the order in question was a continuation of a previous order and that the applicant's claims were not maintainable. The court examined the case's details, including the nature of the tenancy rights and goodwill. It noted that the applicant's failure to challenge earlier orders and its absence from the proceedings weakened its argument. The court also highlighted that tenancy rights on goodwill could be transferable under certain circumstances and that the applicant had not raised objections based on the type of tenancy or other relevant aspects. Ultimately, the court dismissed the applicant's application under Section 12(2) CPC, stating that no fraud or misrepresentation had occurred, and that the applicant's claims were misconceived. The court emphasized that the applicant's actions appeared to be an attempt to disrupt the execution process and upheld the validity of the impugned order.

Summary: Background: The respondent filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement-to-sell dated February 15, 2012, for a 12 marla land and built-up house, claiming that the vendor (proforma respondent) failed to execute the sale deed as agreed. During the proceedings, the parties entered into a compromise, and the District Judge issued a compromise decree on May 29, 2012. Appellant No.1 then filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.), claiming that the compromise decree was obtained through fraud and requested it to be set aside. The District Judge accepted this application and set aside the decree. The respondent appealed to the High Court, which restored the compromise decree on February 12, 2016. The appellants then sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. -----Issues: 1- Was the compromise decree issued by the District Judge obtained through fraud as alleged by the appellants? -----2- Can the compromise decree be valid when a related suit by the appellants regarding the same property was sub judice at the time of the decree? -----3- Did the High Court err in restoring the compromise decree? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding that at the time the compromise decree was passed (May 29, 2012), the suit filed by the appellants regarding the same land had already been withdrawn (on May 28, 2012). Therefore, the appellants’ claim that their suit was pending at the time of the compromise was incorrect. The Court also noted that the proforma respondent was the rightful owner of the land, and her transfer of the property to the respondent was lawful. Since the appellants had previously acknowledged the proforma respondent’s ownership, she had full authority to sell the property. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to restore the compromise decree, stating that the District Judge had erroneously set it aside. -----Citations/Precedents: Section 12(2), Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.)

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 12(2)---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 54---Suit for declaration and permanentinjunction wherein applicant was not made party---Acceptance of petition under S.12(2), C.P.C.on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation---Revival of main suit---Scope---Trial Courtaccepted application under S.12(2), C.P.C. without framing issues and recalled the decree---Plaintiffs contended that application under S.12(2), C.P.C. had raised factual controversy, whichrequired consideration after adducing evidence---Applicant who had filed the application underS.12(2), C.P.C. claimed that in earlier suits applicant was made party but the said suits werewithdrawn with permission to file fresh suit---Applicant, with application under S.12(2), C.P.C.had annexed documents/previous suit filed by the predecessor of plaintiffs in respect of disputedproperty which was judicial record of the court---Consideration of Trial Court in respect ofconcealment of facts and fraud on the part of predecessor of plaintiffs were based on thedocuments to which presumption of truth was attached---Applicant being necessary party in thesuit, was not impleaded---When there were controversy of facts or that of law between theparties in main suit, the suit could not be dismissed while accepting application under S.12(2),C.P.C., but the court, after revival of suit, should proceed with the matter by impleading theapplicant under S.12(2), C.P.C. as a party and after providing opportunity to parties decide thecase on merits---Trial court neither revived the suit nor made any direction to implead applicantunder S.12(2), C.P.C. as party nor proceeded the suit on merits, therefore, to such extent,findings of Trial court were contrary to law, thus void---Order setting aside judgment and decreewas sustained, however, main suit was revived and remanded to Trial Court---Order accordingly.Haji Farman Ullah v. Latif-ur-Rehman 2015 SCMR 1708 ref.

Summary: S. 12(2) CPC.Scope of 12(2) CPC is limited, the Court has to restrict itself only to the extent of deciding the matter of fraud, misrepresentation and want of jurisdiction.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging concurrent orders passed by the Additional District Judge and Rent Controller, Islamabad, which dismissed his application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The petitioner sought to set aside an ejectment order allowing the eviction of respondents from a rented shop. The petitioner claimed ownership of the shop under an agreement to sell executed between him and the landlord and sought protection from eviction pending a suit for specific performance. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner could resist eviction proceedings based on an unproven agreement to sell. -----2- Whether the Rent Controller was obligated to frame issues while deciding the Section 12(2) CPC application. -----3- Whether the petitioner’s possession and allegations of fraud were sufficient to set aside the ejectment order. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Unproven Agreement to Sell: The petitioner’s claim of ownership based on an alleged agreement to sell was unsupported by evidence. Courts emphasized that an agreement to sell does not transfer ownership rights but provides a right to enforce the agreement through a decree. The delay of five years in filing a suit for specific performance undermined the petitioner’s credibility. The eviction proceedings were validly conducted, and the petitioner, not being a party to the tenancy agreement, could not resist eviction based on ownership claims. --Framing of Issues: The Rent Controller was not required to frame issues for deciding a Section 12(2) CPC application if the matter could be resolved based on the record. Precedent allowed such applications to be decided summarily. --Possession and Fraud Allegations: The petitioner failed to provide material evidence of possession or fraudulent conduct by the landlord. Claims of collusion between the landlord and tenants were inconsistent with the record, which showed that eviction proceedings were contested by the tenants. The writ petition was dismissed, with the court ruling that the petitioner’s claims lacked merit. The concurrent decisions of the lower courts were upheld, and no costs were imposed. -----Citations/Precedents: Agreement to Sell and Tenancy: Mst. Rasheeda Begum v. Muhammad Yousaf (2002 SCMR 1089) Muhammad Ibrahim v. Fateh Ali (2005 SCMR 1061) Shah Muhammad v. Atta Muhammad (2005 SCMR 969) Framing Issues in Section 12(2) CPC Applications: Nasira Khatoon v. Aisha Bai (2003 SCMR 1050) Warriach Zarai Corporation v. F.M.C. United (Pvt.) Ltd. (2006 SCMR 531) Amiran Bibi v. Muhammad Ramzan (1999 SCMR 1334) Tenant’s Obligation to Vacate Despite Ownership Claims: Iqbal v. Rabia Bibi (PLD 1991 SC 242) Jumma Khan v. Zarin Khan (PLD 1999 SC 1101) Barkat Masih v. Manzoor Ahmad (2006 SCMR 1068) Abdul Rasheed v. Maqbool Ahmed (2011 SCMR 320)

Summary: In view of herein above facts and circumstances of the case I amof the view that insofar as the plea of fraud and misrepresentation isconcerned the same is not attracted in the instant case, whereas, thecompromise was arrived at after decision of the Special Land Committee, on the basis whereof the applicants issued letter and demanded payment of the differential amount ofMalkano which has been paid by the respondents, hence to that extentand on merits of the case, instant J.M. is misconceived. However, sinceit has come on record that there are certain clauses of the compromiseagreement which do not seem to be lawful and void to the extent ofSection 23 of the Contract Act, and are therefore, hit by the provision ofOrder 23 Rule 3 CPC, the same need to be modified. In thecircumstances, the impugned order is modified, resultantly, thecompromise judgment and decree could only be sustained in respect ofclause (a), (2), (4), (5), (7)[except the words ?including registration of FIR?], (9),(11), (13)[except ?hence proceedings initiated either by the Provincial Anti-CorruptionDepartment or by the NAB Authorities has no value in the eyes of law and shall be declarednull and void?]. Accordingly application under Section 12(2) CPC standsdismissed, however, subject to above modification. Office is directed toprepare amended decree.

Summary: Background: The petitioner contested the dismissal of his application under Section 12(2) read with Section 151 and Order I, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908, by the learned Civil Judge. The dispute centered around a jointly owned property between the petitioner and his former wife. The petitioner’s 50% share had been forfeited to the Federal Government following his conviction in an accountability case. His former wife sought the partition and auction of the property. The petitioner, not originally a party to the suit, argued that he should have been included. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner’s application for setting aside the preliminary decree and subsequent orders was maintainable. -----2- Whether the auction proceedings for the disputed property should be stayed pending the Supreme Court's decision on the petitioner’s criminal petition. -----3- Whether the civil court lacked jurisdiction due to incorrect valuation of the suit property. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome --Application Dismissal: The petitioner's application was dismissed as he no longer had a legal share in the property due to the finality of the accountability court’s conviction and forfeiture orders. --Auction Proceedings: The Islamabad High Court held that the pendency of the petitioner’s criminal petition in the Supreme Court did not justify staying the auction proceedings. The court underscored the necessity of compliance with the law during the auction. --Jurisdiction and Valuation: The court rejected the petitioner’s argument on jurisdiction, holding that the suit's valuation was correctly amended and finalized by the civil court. The valuation clause was in line with legal provisions and had attained finality. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the civil revision petition, upholding the civil court’s jurisdiction, valuation, and the validity of its orders. It also directed the local administration to ensure smooth auction proceedings. -----Citations/Precedents Ajiruddin Mondal & Another v. Rahman Fakir & Others (PLD 1961 SC 349) Zafeer Gul v. Dr. Riaz Ali & Others (2015 SCMR 1691) Mst. Sabira Bibi & Others v. Hikmat Khan & Others (2012 CLC 292) Amir Fayaz Ali Khan v. Member, Board Revenue Judicial-1 (PLD 2008 Lahore 10) Shah Wali v. Ghulam Din alias Gaman & Another (PLD 1966 SC 983) Naeem Ullah Khalid & Another v. Dr. Hafiz Mushtaq Ahmad & 3 Others (2007 YLR 1418)

Summary: DRUG REGULATORY AUTHORITY ACT, 2012 (Section 2(vi)), DRUG REGULATORY AUTHORITY ACT, 2012 (Section 4), Civil Procedure Code CPC (12(2))If the provisions of Section 12(2) CPC are allowed to facilitate a stranger to the suit whose rights have not been affected by the outcome, the provisions are not available for the applicant as otherwise it would open the floodgate of litigation for initiating the proceedings. The application under section 12(2) CPC filed by Saeed Allahwala appears to be misconceived. He may have remedy available with him to initiate proceedings in relation to the warning letter issued but by moving this application he could achieve nothing in this regard.

Summary: ---Issue:The primary issue was to determine the appropriate forum for filing applications under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), in cases where judgments have been procured through fraud or misrepresentation.---Holding:The Supreme