Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (1908) ----S. 12(2); O. V, Rr. 17, 19 & 20—Ex-parte decree—Substituted service—Due service—Audi alteram partem. Ex-parte decree dated 25-09-2012 and order dismissing S.12(2) CPC application set aside—Trial court, without exhausting ordinary modes under O.V, failed to ensure due service and shifted straight to substituted service through a local/regional newspaper having no circulation at defendant’s residence (Karachi)—Mandatory compliance with O.V, Rr.17 & 19 (including examination of process server and recording satisfaction that ordinary service was impracticable or being avoided) not shown—Substituted service is a last-resort mechanism and, absent prior due diligence and a speaking order of satisfaction, is no service in law—Passing an ex-parte decree in such circumstances violates the rule of audi alteram partem. (b) Limitation Act (1908) ----Art. 181, Art. 95 & S. 5—S. 18—S.12(2) CPC application to set aside ex-parte decree on fraud/defective service. Applications under S.12(2) CPC are governed by Art. 181 unless S.18 and Art.95 (fraud/misrepresentation) are attracted; in such cases limitation runs from date of knowledge, with possible condonation under S.5—Limitation does not run against a void order—On facts, plea of knowledge and foundational defects in service brought the matter within time. (c) Process & service of summons ----Substituted service—Pre-conditions—Newspaper publication. Court must first attempt and verify ordinary service; only upon a reasoned satisfaction that defendant is avoiding service or ordinary service is impracticable may O.V, R.20 be invoked—Publication must be in a newspaper with circulation at the defendant’s locale; publication in a local/regional paper without Karachi circulation held a nullity; such “service” cannot sustain ex-parte proceedings. Cited cases: • 2013 SCMR 587 • 2001 CLC 1187 • 2001 SCMR 99 • 1995 MLD 170. Disposition—Appeal allowed; ex-parte judgment & decree dated 25-09-2012 and order dated 09-01-2020 set aside; S.12(2) CPC application allowed; suit restored for de-novo proceedings before trial court in accordance with law. Approved for reporting.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 199—Exercise of constitutional jurisdiction—Cancellation of vehicle registration—Jurisdictional competence—Scope of interference—Excise and Taxation Officer (ETO), Islamabad, cancelled transfer of a Hino Truck originally registered with Motor Registering Authority (MRA), Peshawar—Held, ETO Islamabad lacked territorial jurisdiction to cancel a registration pertaining to a vehicle registered in another province—Orders passed without lawful authority were void ab initio—Exercise of such power amounted to jurisdictional excess and infringement of proprietary rights—High Court, in constitutional jurisdiction, may set aside administrative orders passed in patent lack of jurisdiction. (b) Contract Act, 1872 ----Ss. 10 & 73—Loan agreement—Default and security—Enforcement of contractual right—Respondent obtained loan of Rs.1,500,000/- and pledged vehicle documents as security under agreement dated 15.05.2009—On default, lender transferred ownership of vehicle pursuant to clause authorizing sale and possession—Held, transfer justified in terms of contract—Subsequent complaint and cancellation proceedings could not extinguish contractual rights lawfully exercised before any contrary adjudication. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 249-A & 417—Acquittal and abatement—Legal effect—Borrower’s criminal complaint against lender under Ss. 420, 468 & 471 PPC culminated in acquittal under S.249-A Cr.P.C.; subsequent appeal abated due to lender’s death—Acquittal having attained finality, no adverse inference could be drawn against lender’s ownership claim—Administrative authorities bound to respect outcome of judicial proceedings. (d) Administrative law ----Fraud—Application under S.12(2), C.P.C.—Maintainability—Petitioner’s claim that cancellation order was obtained through misrepresentation—Authorities failed to examine material record or apply judicial mind—Findings based on conjecture—Orders dated 04.08.2010, 13.09.2017, and 17.01.2018 set aside for being arbitrary and passed without lawful authority. (g) Disposition— Writ petition accepted; orders dated 04.08.2010, 13.09.2017, and 17.01.2018 declared void; Motor Registering Authority, Peshawar directed to restore ownership of vehicle in the names of legal heirs of deceased lender.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----S. 12(2)---Decree obtained by fraud or misrepresentation---Scope and maintainability---Eviction proceedings decided in absence of Petitioner---Petitioner claiming ownership on basis of agreements to sell and challenging decree under S.12(2) CPC---Held, that an agreement to sell does not itself create any title or proprietary rights in immovable property and ownership can only be transferred through a registered sale deed in terms of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882---Petitioner’s pending Suit for Specific Performance does not confer ownership rights until adjudicated by competent Court---Hence, he could not be considered a necessary party to the eviction proceedings, nor could the decree be declared void on that ground---Application under S.12(2) CPC was rightly dismissed by the Rent Controller. (b) Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001---- ----S. 17---Eviction proceedings---Non-impleadment of alleged owner in possession---Effect---Petitioner not being a tenant or registered owner of the premises, had no locus standi to challenge eviction order under rent laws---Ejectment decree passed between landlord and tenant found to be lawful and binding---Rent Controller and Appellate Court both correctly exercised jurisdiction in dismissing Petitioner’s plea. (c) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 10-A---Right to fair trial---Scope---Principle of audi alteram partem not violated where person claiming ownership had no established legal right in the property and was neither tenant nor party to lease---No constitutional violation made out---Jurisdiction of Constitutional Court not attracted where findings are based on proper appreciation of law and evidence. Disposition: Writ Petition dismissed; Orders of Rent Controller dated 16.04.2025 and Additional District Judge dated 03.06.2025 upheld.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.12(2) & O. IX, R.13---Ex parte decree---Application for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree on ground of fraud and want of notice---Scope---Petitioner contended that ex parte judgment and decree were obtained without notice and by concealment of facts---Record revealed that petitioner and other defendants had actively participated in proceedings after restoration of suit from record room and attended several hearings through counsel---Their absence at later stages was found deliberate, and right of cross-examination was struck off after repeated adjournments---Held, petitioner’s claim of fraud and denial of hearing was unfounded---Ex parte decree was passed in accordance with law and no illegality was found in dismissal of application u/s 12(2), C.P.C. (b) ---Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--- ----Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Concurrent findings of fact by Trial Court and Revisional Court---Scope of interference---Both Courts below found that petitioner had been negligent and provided multiple opportunities before being proceeded ex parte---Findings being concurrent and based on evidence, High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction cannot act as appellate or revisional forum to reappraise factual matters---No material illegality or jurisdictional defect established warranting interference. (c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----Principle of laches---Delay in filing writ petition---Effect---Impugned judgment passed on 27.01.2016 while writ petition filed on 29.05.2017, showing delay of one year and four months---Explanation offered that certified copy could not be obtained due to missing record was unsupported by credible evidence---Held, delay unexplained and petition barred by laches---Court declined to condone delay in absence of sufficient cause. Petition dismissed.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.12(2), O.XXI, R.11---Execution of decree---Conditional decree---Failure to comply with condition---Effect---Petitioner obtained a conditional decree for specific performance on 26.03.2015 subject to payment of remaining sale consideration within seven days---Petitioner failed to deposit the amount within stipulated period and sought extension, which was dismissed---Held, decree being conditional in nature ceased to exist upon non-fulfilment of the condition precedent, and consequently no executable decree survived in petitioner’s favour---In absence of compliance, decree became inoperative and incapable of execution. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----Art.181---Execution petition---Limitation period---Commencement---Scope---Decree passed on 26.03.2015 attained finality and was never challenged, modified, or stayed---Execution petition filed on 10.06.2021, more than three years after decree, was time-barred under Art.181---No valid justification for delay produced---Appellate Court rightly set aside order of Executing Court and dismissed execution petition as hopelessly barred by limitation---Reliance placed on Abdul Qayyum v. Ali Asghar Shah (1992 SCMR 241) and Bakhtiar Ahmed v. Shamim Akhtar (2013 SCMR 5). (c) ---Civil revision---Scope of interference---Concurrent findings of fact by subordinate Courts---Effect---Appellate Court’s findings based on proper appreciation of record and settled law on limitation and executability---No illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional defect established---High Court declined to interfere in revisional jurisdiction. Revision dismissed.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (1908) — S. 12(2) — Fraud/misrepresentation; suppression of material facts — Effect on judicial orders — Where petitioner, seeking inclusion in CDA effectees’ balloting, (i) withheld prior civil litigation over the same agreement (suit dismissed for non-prosecution; restoration applications also dismissed and attained finality), and (ii) furnished incorrect addresses to avoid service upon real owners (respondents No.14–21), the writ order dated 19-10-2017—procured on CDA Director’s assurance without hearing necessary private parties—stood vitiated for concealment and abuse of process — Any order obtained by fraud/suppression lacks sanctity and is liable to be set aside under S.12(2), CPC. (b) Land acquisition compensation / effectees’ balloting — Locus standi — Agreement to sell & Special Power of Attorney (SPA) — Scope — Petitioner, neither an effectee nor legal heir, founded claim on an old agreement to sell and a SPA — SPA clauses were administrative/representational only; conferred no authority to substitute attorney’s name in balloting, claim compensation in his own right, or transfer proprietary/beneficiary entitlements — In absence of title or specific authority, petitioner had no standing to seek inclusion in balloting. (c) Writ jurisdiction — Disposal on executive assurance — Limits — Statement by CDA Land & Rehabilitation Director promising inclusion in forthcoming balloting created no independent legal right in favour of petitioner and could not eclipse threshold questions of maintainability, notice, and entitlement; writ petition should not have been disposed without determining locus and hearing affected private parties. (d) Practice & procedure — Service/addresses — Providing a different/incorrect address for private respondents in writ (despite having used their correct address earlier in civil suit) indicated intentional avoidance of service; denial of right of audience to necessary parties constitutes grave procedural illegality. (e) Fraud on court — Principle reaffirmed — Orders procured by fraud/misrepresentation are nullities and can be revisited/set aside (ref. principle in Muhammad Jalat Khan v. LAC, Tarbela Dam, 2003 SCMR 210). Disposition: C.M. (Indp) No.2206/2020 under S.12(2), CPC allowed; order dated 19-10-2017 set aside; W.P. No.2932/2017 dismissed. Consequentially, Criminal Original No.363-W/2017 for contempt dismissed as infructuous.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)—S. 12(2)—Fraud and misrepresentation—Scope—Application under S. 12(2), C.P.C., filed by legal heirs of mortgagor challenging High Court’s judgment allowing constitutional petition against order of Banking Court—Allegation that order was obtained fraudulently and without impleading legal heirs after death of mortgagor—Held, legal heirs were arrayed as respondents in restoration proceedings, their counsel entered appearance and sought adjournment, and the matter was ultimately decided in their absence—Participation in proceedings rebutted allegation of fraud or misrepresentation—Application dismissed. The Court reaffirmed that to invoke S. 12(2), C.P.C., a party must establish actual fraud or misrepresentation affecting the court's decision-making process—Mere procedural lapse or participation in proceedings by counsel precludes invocation of fraud—Petitioners’ contention that they were not impleaded lacked merit as record showed they were duly represented—No forged documents or active concealment proven. (b) Constitutional jurisdiction—Maintainability—Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001—S. 22—Interlocutory order of Banking Court—Availability of appeal—Scope—Petitioners contended that constitutional petition challenging dismissal of application for possession was not maintainable as order was appealable—Held, no appeal lies under S. 22 against interlocutory orders—Constitutional petition was maintainable—Such legal argument could not be raised under S. 12(2), C.P.C.—Application dismissed. The Court held that the challenge to maintainability of constitutional petition, being a legal plea, could not be pressed in a collateral proceeding under S. 12(2), C.P.C.—Said provision is confined to cases of fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of jurisdiction, not legal errors or alternate statutory remedies. (c) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001—S. 15 (declared ultra vires)—Past and closed transactions—Effect—Scope—Auction proceedings under S. 15 conducted prior to declaration of provision as ultra vires—Mortgagor did not challenge auction—Sale certificate issued and mutation sanctioned—Balance sale proceeds withdrawn by mortgagor without objection—Held, transaction amounted to a past and closed transaction protected under settled jurisprudence. Court relied upon Muhammad Moizuddin v. Mansoor Khalil (2017 SCMR 1787), National Bank of Pakistan v. SAF Textile Mills (PLD 2014 SC 283), and Muhammad Umer Rathore v. Federation of Pakistan (2009 CLD 257) to hold that sales finalized prior to invalidation of S. 15, including registered sale deeds and delivery of sale proceeds, are immune from challenge—Once mortgagor received residual sale proceeds without protest, his legal heirs are estopped from reopening concluded proceedings. (d) Estoppel—Mortgagor received balance sale proceeds after auction without objecting to auction process—Sale deed registered and mutation sanctioned—Held, legal heirs of mortgagor estopped from challenging sale proceedings—Acceptance of proceeds amounted to waiver of right to object—Application barred. Disposition: Application under S. 12(2), C.P.C., dismissed for lack of merit and maintainability; no fraud, misrepresentation, or jurisdictional defect found; transaction held to be past and closed.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ----S. 12(2)—Application for setting aside judgment on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation—Maintainability—Requirements—Scope—Applicants (legal heirs of mortgagor) challenged High Court judgment in constitutional petition allowing auction purchaser’s prayer for possession—Grounds taken included non-impleadment of legal heirs, and maintainability of constitutional petition—Held, applicants were impleaded and represented in restoration proceedings; counsel was present, requested adjournment, and subsequently failed to appear—No concealment or fraud practiced—Constitutional petition was filed against interlocutory order which was not appealable—Application under S.12(2), C.P.C., not maintainable in absence of fraud practiced upon the Court or jurisdictional defect—Dismissed. (b) Constitutional Petition – Maintainability – Banking jurisdiction: ----Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, Ss. 15 & 22—Constitutional petition filed against interlocutory order of Banking Court—Petitioner sought possession of auctioned property which was denied by Banking Court due to late filing of statement of accounts—Held, constitutional jurisdiction was rightly invoked as no appeal lay against such interlocutory order—Objection to maintainability was beyond the scope of S.12(2), C.P.C. (c) Constitutional Law – Validity of Statutory Provision – Effect of Declaration of Ultra Vires – Past and Closed Transactions: ----Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, S. 15—Declaration of S.15 as ultra vires by Supreme Court—Effect—Where sale deed was executed, mutation sanctioned, and proceeds adjusted—Sale held to be a past and closed transaction—High Court relied on Muhammad Moizuddin v. Mansoor Khalil 2017 SCMR 1787 and National Bank of Pakistan v. SAF Textile Mills Ltd. PLD 2014 SC 283—Held, once auction purchaser deposited entire bid amount, sale certificate was issued, mutation entered, and predecessor of applicants withdrew balance sale proceeds without objection, auction became final and could not be re-opened under guise of constitutional challenge or S.12(2), C.P.C. (d) Estoppel – Withdrawal of Sale Proceeds – Challenge Barred: ----Respondent No.3 purchased mortgaged property in auction—Predecessor of applicants did not object to auction and withdrew remaining sale proceeds—Subsequent challenge by legal heirs held barred—Applicants estopped from denying validity of auction or seeking reversal of sale proceedings. Ali Muhammad v. Chief Settlement Commissioner 1984 SCMR 94 followed. (e) Civil Procedure – Burden of Proof in S.12(2), C.P.C. Application: ----Applicants failed to establish any of the essential grounds under S.12(2), C.P.C., namely that fraud was practiced upon the Court, forged documents were used, active concealment occurred, or there was want of jurisdiction—Mere dissatisfaction with outcome or legal strategy does not justify interference—Application dismissed for lack of merit. ----Disposition: Application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. dismissed as not maintainable and meritless.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973: ----Art. 4 & Art. 199---Departmental proceedings---Right to be dealt with in accordance with law---Violation of earlier court direction---Scope---Where a court directs that objections raised in a writ petition be treated and decided accordingly by a competent authority, failure to address those objections renders the resulting decision void ab-initio---Held, respondent No.2’s order dated 30.01.2025 disregarded the binding directive of the High Court and failed to address petitioner’s objections, violating the right to be treated in accordance with law under Article 4---Resulting disciplinary proceedings were, therefore, unsustainable. Cited Cases: • All Public Universities BPS Teachers Assoc. v. Federation of Pakistan 2025 SCMR 322 • Muhammad Tariq Khan v. NBP 2024 CLD 1350 • Muhammad Akram Sohail v. Govt. of Punjab 2024 LHC 1923 (b) Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 2020: ----R. 3---Departmental proceedings---Scope of applicability---Misstatement in pleadings before tribunal---Whether constitutes misconduct---Petitioners proceeded against under Rule 3 based on alleged misstatement in service appeals filed before the FST---Held, acts in question pertained to pleadings prepared by counsel and not to petitioners’ official conduct---Misstatement, if any, could be addressed via S. 12(2), C.P.C. or S. 195, Cr.P.C. by the relevant forum, not through disciplinary proceedings---None of the four grounds listed under Rule 3 (inefficiency, misconduct, corruption, or subversion) attracted in the case---Disciplinary action initiated was thus ultra vires and void. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Tariq Khan v. NBP 2024 CLD 1350 • Samina Pathan v. Federation of Pakistan 2018 PLC (C.S.) Note 36 • Prof. Dr. Mahmood Baig v. Ministry of Science & Technology 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1451 (c) Civil Procedure Code, 1908: ----S. 12(2)---Remedy against misstatement or concealment in pleadings---Where allegations of misrepresentation or concealment arise from submissions before a judicial forum, appropriate remedy is application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. before the same forum---Failure of respondents to avail such remedy, despite recommendations, barred subsequent initiation of disciplinary proceedings on the same grounds. (d) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898: ----S. 195---False statement before tribunal---Proper course of action---Held, where a party alleges misrepresentation before a judicial forum, forum itself is empowered to refer matter for criminal action---Respondents’ failure to act under S.195 and resort to disciplinary measures instead was held legally untenable. (e) Constitutional Jurisdiction: ----Interference in disciplinary proceedings---Scope---While courts generally refrain from intervening in ongoing disciplinary processes, such jurisdiction may be exercised where proceedings are without legal foundation, mala fide, or intended to frustrate a final judicial order---In instant case, disciplinary proceedings were found to be a tool to delay implementation of a judgment upheld by the Supreme Court---Held, continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of process. ----Cited Cases: • Fahad Faizan Khan v. Federation of Pakistan 2023 PLC (C.S.) Note 4 • Muhammad Tariq Khan v. NBP 2024 CLD 1350

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) – S. 12(2) – Fraud and misrepresentation – Setting aside judgment Application under S. 12(2), CPC – Judgment obtained through fraud – Respondent, while obtaining judgment dated 03.11.1992 in W.P. No.819/1972, deliberately failed to implead the applicant as respondent despite specific court direction to do so – Instead, applicant was falsely shown as co-petitioner by altering party memo – No notice issued to applicant, and judgment passed without hearing it – Held, any judgment or decree obtained through concealment, fraud, or misrepresentation is a nullity and liable to be set aside – Impugned judgment set aside. Cited cases: Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner PLD 1973 SC 236; Lahore Development Authority v. Firdous Steel Mills 2010 SCMR 1097; Mst. Nazeeran v. Ali Bux 2024 SCMR 1271 (b) Limitation Act, 1908 – Art. 18 – Applicability to S. 12(2) CPC applications – Fraud exception Limitation – Start of limitation period – Applicant filed application under S. 12(2), CPC upon discovery of fraud – Held, no limitation applies against a void or fraudulent judgment – Time begins from the date of knowledge – Application filed within time – Objection to limitation overruled. Cited cases: Salamat Ali v. Muhammad Din PLD 2022 SC 353; Mst. Rabia Gula v. Muhammad Janan 2022 SCMR 1009; Shabla v. Ms. Jahan Afroz Khilat 2020 SCMR 352 (c) Constitution of Pakistan – Art. 269 – Validation of Presidential Orders – Life Insurance (Nationalization) Order, 1972 Nationalization of life insurance – Constitutional protection – Life Insurance (Nationalization) Order, 1972 promulgated on 18.03.1972 – Validated under Art. 269(1), Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 – Held, Order of 1972 protected from judicial scrutiny and cannot be challenged on any ground – Jurisdiction of High Court barred. Cited cases: The Chief Settlement Commissioner v. Raja Fazil Khan PLD 1975 SC 331; Muhammad Baran v. Member (Settlement) PLD 1991 SC 691; Mansab Ali v. Amir PLD 1971 SC 124 (d) Life Insurance (Nationalization) Order, 1972 – Arts. 4, 5, 6, 45 – Bar of jurisdiction – Public property Jurisdiction of courts – Public assets – Property in dispute vested with Central Government following nationalization – Under Art. 45 of the Order, jurisdiction of courts including High Court and Supreme Court is barred – Held, courts cannot entertain writs or suits in relation to nationalized insurance assets – Writ petition not maintainable. Cited provisions: Articles 4, 5, 6 & 45 of Life Insurance (Nationalization) Order, 1972 (e) Equity – Duty of disclosure – Clean hands doctrine – Public property Fraudulent concealment – Respondent failed to disclose that it had received full compensation for the nationalized property and had pursued separate civil litigation for further recovery – Held, concealment of material facts disentitles party from any relief – Courts are guardians of public interest and must act to prevent misuse of public property – Petition rightly dismissed. Cited cases: Mst. Shahida v. BISE Larkana PLD 2001 SC 26; Sayed Abbas Taqi Mehdi v. Sabahat Batool 2010 SCMR 1840; Abdul Haq Indher v. Province of Sindh 2007 SCMR 907 Disposition: Application under S. 12(2), CPC allowed – Judgment dated 03.11.1992 set aside – Writ Petition No.819/1972 dismissed as not maintainable due to fraud, misrepresentation, and constitutional bar on jurisdiction.