Summary: Background: A gas pipeline company filed a petition challenging determinations made by a regulatory authority regarding the Final Revenue Requirements for specific financial years. The company disputed the treatment of "Unaccounted for Gas" (UFG), arguing it should not be treated as a penalty. Shareholders of the company also filed related petitions under the Constitution. The company had already filed review petitions before the authority but sought additional relief through the court. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitions under section 12(2) of the relevant ordinance and Article 199 of the Constitution are maintainable when review petitions are already pending before the authority. -----2- Whether the regulatory authority has jurisdiction to address the company’s grievances through its review powers. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the petitions, stating that the company had already opted for an adequate remedy under section 13 of the ordinance by filing review petitions, making the present petitions under section 12(2) of the ordinance and Article 199 of the Constitution non-maintainable. The court emphasized that when an alternative statutory remedy is available, constitutional petitions are generally discouraged unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as issues of jurisdiction or mala fide intent. The court directed the company to raise all concerns in the ongoing review proceedings with the authority. -----Citations/Precedents: Tariq Transport Company, Lahore vs. The Sargodha-Bhera Bus Service, Sargodha and others, [PLD 1958 SC 437] Lt. Col. Nawabzada Muhammad Amir Khan vs. The Controller of Estate Duty and others, [PLD 1961 SC 119] The Murree Brewery Co. Ltd vs Pakistan through the Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Works Division and 2 others, [PLD 1972 SC 279] Abdur Rehman vs Haji Mir Ahmad Khan and another, [PLD 1983 SC 21] Commissioner of Income Tax, Companies-II and another vs. Hamdard Dawakhana (Waqf), Karachi, [PLD 1992 SC 847] Income-Tax Officer and another vs. M/s. Chappal Builders, [1993 SCMR 1108] Ch. Muhammad Ismail vs Fazal Zada, Civil Judge, Lahore and 20 others, [PLD 1996 SC 246] Khalid Mehmood vs Collector of Customs, Customs House, Lahore, [1999 SCMR 1881] Collector of Customs, Customs House, Lahore and 3 others vs. Messrs S.M. Ahmad & Company (Pvt) Limited, Islamabad, [1999 SCMR 138] Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Messrs Eli Lilly Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd, [2009 SCMR 1279]

Summary: Civil Procedure Code CPC (12 (2) CPC)If triable issues are not involved, which required leading and recording of evidence, then it is not mandatory to frame issues and an application under Section 12(2) of C.P.C. can be decided on the basis of available case record and undisputed facts.Ratable distribution under Section 73 read with Order XXXIV Rule 13 of Civil procedure Code; Bank having a mortgage decree in its favour has a preferential status over a money decree, which is in favour of Plaintiff.

Summary: The background of the case is as follows: The petitioners had initially filed a lawsuit for declaration, cancellation, and permanent injunction against respondents No. 1 to 10 before the Civil Judge, Kasur. The lawsuit was decreed in favor of the petitioners on February 19, 2011. However, respondents No. 12 to 14, who were not parties to the original lawsuit, purchased the property during the pendency of the lawsuit. Their application under Section 12(2) of The Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.), which challenges the validity of the judgment, was dismissed by the Civil Judge on April 5, 2011. The respondents then filed a revision petition against this order.Conversely, the respondents' counsel defended the order of the revisional court, arguing that respondents No. 12 to 14 were bona fide purchasers, and their rights should be protected. They claimed that the Civil Judge's order was not tenable under the law. In his analysis, Justice Rauf noted that the respondents No. 12 to 14 had purchased the property while the original lawsuit was ongoing, which violated the court's injunction against further alienating the property. This, in itself, was a violation of Section 52 of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which governs transactions made during the pendency of litigation.Regarding the argument that the Civil Judge should have framed issues and recorded evidence, Justice Rauf cited precedent cases that emphasized the court's discretion in deciding whether to do so based on the nature of the allegations in the application. He concluded that in this case, the absence of framed issues and recorded evidence did not invalidate the Civil Judge's order.Ultimately, Justice Rauf found that the revisional court had committed an error in setting aside the Civil Judge's well-reasoned order without proper legal justification. He ruled in favor of the petitioners, allowing the petition and setting aside the revisional court's order while restoring the Civil Judge's order. No costs were awarded in the case.

Summary: PLJ 2015 Lahore 1005 [Multan Bench, Multan] -----Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908), Section 12(2) - Validity of Challenging Final Judgment: A final judgment, decree, or order can only be challenged by filing an application under Section 12(2) of the CPC if the case was decided on merits [Page 1008]. Fraud or Misrepresentation - Application Maintainability: The petitioner failed to establish any element of fraud or misrepresentation upon the court, thus rendering the application under Section 12(2) CPC not maintainable [Page 1008]. -----Background: The petitioner filed a Section 12(2) Civil Procedure Code (CPC) application, challenging an ejectment order obtained by respondents who claimed ownership of the property. The petitioner alleged fraud and misrepresentation in the respondents' actions leading to the order. Prior to this, the petitioner had filed a Special Appeal (S.A.O.) contesting the ejectment, but it was dismissed on procedural grounds without being reviewed on merits. Following this dismissal, the petitioner pursued a Section 12(2) CPC application, which was denied for lack of evidence substantiating fraud or misrepresentation. -----Issues: 1- Is the petitioner’s application under Section 12(2) CPC, contesting the ejectment order, maintainable given that the S.A.O. was dismissed on procedural grounds? -----2- Does the petitioner have sufficient evidence to establish fraud or misrepresentation, as required under Section 12(2) CPC? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the petition based on the following reasons: An application under Section 12(2) CPC is maintainable only if the final order was decided on the merits. Since the S.A.O. was dismissed on procedural grounds, it does not qualify as a decision on merits. The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of fraud or misrepresentation, which is essential for a successful Section 12(2) CPC application. The appellate court’s decision was upheld, as no grounds for interference were established. The civil revision was thereby dismissed. -----Citations/Precedents: Nasrullah Khan and others v. Mukhtar-ul-Hassan and others (PLD 2013 SC 487) Muhammad Aslam (deceased) through L.Rs and others v. Molvi Muhammad Ishaq (deceased) through L.Rs (2012 SCMR 147) Maulvi Abdul Qayyum v. Syed Ali Asghar Shah and others (1992 SCMR 241)

Summary: The respondents had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner's predecessor in interest regarding this land. The suit was subsequently decreed based on a compromise reached between the parties. The petitioner, as the legal heir of the deceased Muhammad Nawaz, filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to set aside the compromise decree dated January 9, 1989. However, both the trial court and the Additional District Judge had dismissed the application, leading to this writ petition. The petitioner argued that the compromise and decree were unlawful because the land was owned by the Provincial Government and could not be transferred without prior government permission. The respondent countered these arguments, asserting that the transfer did not violate Section 19 of the Colonization of Government Land Act, 1912. They also emphasized that the petitioner's application was time-barred. It also mentions the concept of "part performance" under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which could protect the respondent's rights. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the decisions of the lower courts and finding no reason for interference.

Summary: The dispute arose from a suit for the recovery, filed against the appellant and others, resulting in an ex-parte decree issued in the sum. The appellant contested this decision via an application under Section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and sought to challenge the ex-parte decree. The appeal argued that the ex-parte decree was founded on fraud, misrepresentation, and concealment of facts, stating that the appellant was condemned unheard, without due notice. The appellant presented several objections, including the absence of a fair hearing and alleged fraudulent practices that led to the decree. However, the Court noted that a prior application to set aside the ex-parte decree had been filed and subsequently dismissed, and no appeal was made against that decision, indicating finality under the law. The Court also addressed the lack of allegations against the appellant's brother, who was involved in the power of attorney. It pointed out that necessary parties should be involved in the application under Section 12(2) CPC where fraud allegations are made, quoting the case of "Raja Muhammad Arshad Vs. Raja Rabnawaz." Furthermore, the Court noted that the appellant did not appear in the court despite being summoned; thus, ex-parte proceedings were conducted. The notices were sent to the address the appellant had provided to the bank during the loan facility, and the Court found the appellant's claims regarding the address issue unsubstantiated. The Court found the appellant's application under Section 12(2) CPC not bona fide and dismissed the appeal, considering the circumstances and the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's claims.

Summary: ''If a decree is set aside under section 12(2), C.P.C., the suit is revived and the case needs to be remanded to the trial court to decide the suit on merit.''--- Procedural History:The trial court set aside the decree but did not revive the suit, relying on PLD 1995 LHR 76. The appellant's subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Peshawar High Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider if the suit should have been revived after setting aside the ex-parte decree.Issue:Whether the trial court was correct in setting aside the ex-parte decree obtained through fraud and misrepresentation without reviving the appellant's suit.Holding:The Supreme Court held that the trial court should have revived the appellant's suit upon setting aside the ex-parte decree, allowing the respondent to contest the suit on merits.Reasoning:The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 12(2) CPC, a judgment or decree obtained through fraud can be challenged by application to the court that passed the decree. Ordinarily, if such an application is accepted, the suit should be revived to allow the parties to contest the matter on its merits. The Court distinguished this case from others cited by the respondent, emphasizing that dismissal of the suit along with setting aside the decree under Section 12(2) CPC is an exception that applies in very special and extraordinary circumstances. The Court found that the trial court and the High Court erred in not reviving the suit as the issues framed were limited to the application under Section 12(2) CPC and did not cover the main controversy of the suit. The Supreme Court relied on its judgment in Falak Khurshid Vs. Fakhar Khurshid and others (2006 SCMR 595) to support its reasoning.Judgment:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the lower courts, revived the appellant's suit, and remanded the matter to the trial court for a decision in accordance with the law, requiring the respondent to file a written statement.

Summary: Suit and application u/s 12(2) CPC could not be filed simultaneously

Summary: Article 199 of the constitution of Pakistan, 1973.. section 12(2) CPC...Application of respondent no. q Stands dismissed.

Summary: ''Applications under section 12(2) CPC, post a Supreme Court decision affirming a lower court?s ruling, must be filed before the Supreme Court itself'' --- ''Explanation: when the Supreme Court affirms a judgment, the ruling of the lower court is effectively absorbed into and replaced by the decision of the Supreme Court. As a result, the Supreme Court's judgment, even if it is affirming without modification, becomes the final and operative decision.Thus, contrary to the standard interpretation where applications under Section 12(2) might generally be filed at the original court that issued the affirmed decision, the judgment suggests that because the decision has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, it should be seen as the final authority, and any applications under Section 12(2) should indeed be filed before the Supreme Court.''---Background:This case involves a series of appeals concerning the application of Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding where an aggrieved person should file an application when a judgment has been affirmed, reversed, or modified by a higher court. The key issue revolves around the interpretation of "the Court which passed the final judgment, decree or order" in situations where higher courts have confirmed lower court decisions.---Issues:Whether the doctrine of judicial merger applies when the Supreme Court or a higher appellate court affirms a lower court's judgment without modification.What constitutes the final judgment, decree, or order for the purposes of filing subsequent applications under Section 12(2) of the CPC when the original judgment is affirmed by a higher court.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Justice Mian Saqib Nisar clarified that the doctrine of judicial merger applies not only when a judgment is modified or reversed by a higher court, but also when it is affirmed. The essence of the doctrine is that the decision of the higher court, whether it affirms, reverses, or modifies the lower court's ruling, becomes the final decree for all legal purposes. Therefore, any application under Section 12(2) should be filed in the court whose judgment has been affirmed by the highest court that heard the matter.---The Court held:The rule of merger is applicable even if the higher court simply affirms the judgment of the lower court.The affirmed decision of the lower court merges into the decision of the higher court, making the higher court's decision the operative and enforceable one.If the Supreme Court affirms a High Court decision without modification, the High Court's judgment remains the final judgment for the purpose of Section 12(2), and any application under this section should be filed before the High Court.---Citations/Precedents:Nasrullah Khan and others v. Mukhtar-ul-Hassan and others (PLD 2013 SC 478): This case established the principle that the appellate forum is the Supreme Court of Pakistan for applications under Section 12(2) when it involves affirmed decisions.F.A. Khan v. The Government of Pakistan (PLD 1964 SC 520): Discussed the continuity of the original proceedings in appeals, stating that the appellate decision becomes the operative decision.Joydeb Agarwala v. Baitulmal Karkhana Ltd. (PLD 1965 SC 37): Contrasted previous rulings by holding that the doctrine of merger did not apply if the appellate court simply affirmed the lower court's decision without modifying it.