Summary: The case involved a dispute over land in Chak No. 220-R.B, Tehsil & District Faisalabad. The petitioner, Muhammad Yaqoob, claimed that the land was allotted to him in 1953. However, the Government of Pakistan exchanged evacuee land with state land in 1958 for the extension of Layallpur Town (Faisalabad). In 1995, the court allowed Yaqoob's writ petitions, directing the issuance of proprietary rights. The Province of Punjab filed appeals, resulting in a partial allowance in 2001. Subsequently, the Punjab government filed a petition in 2015 challenging the initial allotment, alleging fraud, misrepresentation, and illegalities. The Supreme Court converted the petition into a review and remitted it to the Lahore High Court. However, the petitioner failed to appear in multiple court hearings. An inquiry revealed discrepancies and fraud in the alleged allotment, including the petitioner's age and government employment claims. The court concluded that the petitioner obtained the 1995 order through fraud and misrepresentation. Therefore, the 1995 order was reversed, and the application under Section 12(2) C.P.C. was allowed. The court also declared the initial allotment and subsequent orders as non-existent due to the foundational fraud.

Summary: This application, filed under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, is presented by Mr. Muhammad Latif, the subsequent transferee of a property initially purchased at auction by Mr. Abid Hussain (respondent No.14). The applicant seeks a declaration against the judgment, where the court allowed an appeal and set aside an auction held. The applicant, impleaded as respondent No.15 in the main appeal, argues that no opportunity was given to defend its rights. The court examined the issues framed, including fraud and misrepresentation, engagement of legal representation, and the relief sought. During the proceedings, it is revealed that the auction purchaser (respondent No.14) independently challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court but subsequently withdrew the appeal. The court determined whether the interests of the applicant and the auction purchaser overlap, if they can pursue separate remedies, and the implications of the withdrawal of the appeal by the auction purchaser. The court concluded that the applicant, as a subsequent transferee, cannot claim independent rights in the property when the auction sale is set aside. The principle of lis pendens is applied, and the withdrawal of the appeal by the auction purchaser is deemed an acceptance of the order setting aside the auction. The court dismissed the application, ruling that the applicant lacks the standing to contest the order independently of the auction purchaser.

Summary: Background:The case involves a dispute over a land sale agreement made in 1999, lacking specific details about the property and sale consideration.Firdos Khan filed a suit for specific performance based on this agreement.---Issues:Whether the sale agreement lacking specific property description and sale consideration is enforceable.Whether the trial court erred in decreeing specific performance without addressing the deficiencies in the agreement.Whether the objections raised by the appellant regarding execution proceedings were properly considered.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the trial court had failed to consider the legal requirements for decreeing specific performance.The agreement lacked crucial details, rendering it unenforceable.The trial court erred in decreeing specific performance without properly addressing the deficiencies in the agreement.The objections raised by the appellant regarding execution proceedings were not adequately considered by the trial and appellate courts.Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside all previous orders.The court directed a rehearing of the objections under Section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, with strict adherence to procedural rules and consideration of evidence within the scope of the original pleadings.---Citations/Precedents:Section 22 of the Specific Relief ActOrder VII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil ProcedureSection 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code

Summary: The superstructure of the application u/s 12(2) CPC of petitioner was built-up on an unregistered document, purportedly, executed in the year 1994 by one Riaz Khan; and thereafter, the petitioner slept over his alleged rights and managed no efforts to get transfer the suit house in his name through any registered instrument or any other legal means. Even after the death of Riaz Khan, in the year 1996, he remained idle and he had not taken any step to enforce his alleged rights. Instead in year 2018, after a long period of 24 years, petit9oner agitated his purported rights through the present application. It means he is trying to get himself declared as owner on the basis ofapplication under S. 12(2) CPC in a short cut manner. The rights of the petitioner om the basis of purported document are pre-mature and the said stale document does not provide petitioner.

Summary: Background:Jubilee General Insurance Co. Ltd (the insurer) appealed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the dismissal of their application under section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) challenging the judgment of the Insurance Tribunal.---Issues:Whether the insurer's application under section 12(2) CPC was maintainable.Whether the insurer's challenge based on the ground of limitation was justified.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the insurer's application under section 12(2) CPC was not maintainable. The insurer had previously exhausted multiple remedies against the judgment of the Insurance Tribunal, including review jurisdiction and objection petitions. Therefore, the doctrine of constructive res judicata barred the insurer from seeking annulment of the judgment through another channel of remedy.Additionally, the Court found that the insurer's challenge based on limitation was not valid. The insurer failed to raise the issue of limitation in the earlier proceedings before the Insurance Tribunal, which resulted in the respondent having no opportunity to contest it. The doctrine of equitable estoppel also applied, as the insurer's conduct induced the insured to believe that the claim would be settled, thereby preventing the insured from approaching the Insurance Tribunal earlier.

Summary: The petitioner had initially filed a suit for confirmation of possession through specific performance, which was dismissed. The petitioner then appealed the decision but later withdrew the appeal. Approximately 5Ω months later, the petitioner filed an application under Section 12(2), C.P.C., seeking to set aside the withdrawal order, citing misrepresentation and fraud. The petitioner contends that the impugned order is legally unsustainable. The petitioner argued that the court did not provide an opportunity to present evidence regarding the grounds mentioned in the application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. The petitioner claimed that the withdrawal of the appeal was based on assurances from the respondents concerning the settlement of the dispute through an arbitrator outside the court. The court, after hearing arguments from both sides, finds that the application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. alleged withdrawal based on assurances from the respondents for an out-of-court settlement through an arbitrator. The court emphasized that when disputed questions of fact are raised, it is essential to frame issues and record evidence to decide the matter. As a result, the court accepted the petition, sets aside the order.

Summary: S. 12(2) CPC.It is not incumbent under section 12(2) CPC, that it must in all circumstances from issues, record evidence and follow the procedure laid down for suit.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O.XXIII, R.3 & S.12(2)---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---Compromise decree,setting aside of---Limitation---Application under S.12(2), C.P.C.---Fraud and misrepresentation---Nonframing of issues---Effect---Trial Court dismissed petition for setting aside of compromise decree butAppellate Court remanded the matter for decision afresh after recording of evidence---Validity---Petitioners had raised specific plea of fraud and misrepresentation which had been denied by therespondent while submitting reply of petition---Parties should have been provided reasonable opportunityto produce their evidence, in circumstances---Framing of issues in every application under S.12(2),C.P.C. was not necessary but in certain cases issues should be framed and evidence was required for justconclusion---No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned order passed by theRevisional Court---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Summary: Art. 199--Specific Relief Act, (I of 1877), Ss. 31, 42 & 54--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.12(2)--Suits for declaration, correction of mutation entries, partition and permanent injunction--Suit No. 1170/2000 was decreed while Suit No. 17/2000 was disposed of--Consolidation ofsuits--Consolidated judgment--Appeal filed by stranger--Accepted--Case was remanded to trialCourt for re-writing of judgment--Submission of compromise deed--Both suits were decided onbasis of compromise--Filling of application under Section 12(2) of C.P.C.--Dismissed--Filling ofcivil revision--Accepted--Matter was remanded to trial Court--Opportunity of hearing--Framingof issues--Challenge to--Revisional Court has accepted petition by remanding matter to trialCourt with direction to frame issue by affording opportunity of leading evidence of parties and todecide application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. in accordance with law--It is necessary to providereasonable opportunity to parties to produce their evidence--Although it is not requirement oflaw to frame issue in every case under Section 12(2), C.P.C. but in certain cases issues are to beframed and evidence is required for reaching at a just conclusion--Counsel for petitioner has notbeen able to point out any illegality and irregularity in impugned order passed by RevisionalCourt--Petition was dismissed. [Pp. 20 & 21] A, B & C

Summary: Background:Sher Afzal filed a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) challenging the order dated 10-10-2018 passed by the District Judge Gilgit. The petitioner's application under Section 12(2) CPC, which sought to invalidate a previous court order, was dismissed by the District Judge without framing issues. The petitioner initially sued Jangi Bahadur for defamation, seeking Rs. 50 crore in damages. The case was withdrawn on 10-05-2016 on the grounds of a settlement, but the petitioner later claimed the withdrawal was unauthorized and filed an application under Section 12(2) CPC, which was dismissed.----Issues:Whether the District Judge Gilgit erred in dismissing the application under Section 12(2) CPC without framing issues.Whether the petitioner's consent was obtained for the withdrawal of the defamation suit.Whether the grounds for filing an application under Section 12(2) CPC (fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of jurisdiction) were met.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Judge Ali Baig dismissed the civil revision petition, holding that the District Judge Gilgit's dismissal of the Section 12(2) CPC application was correct. The court found that the three grounds for filing under Section 12(2) CPC?fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of jurisdiction?were not present in this case. The petitioner actively participated in the court proceedings and appeared before the trial court on 10-05-2016, when he verbally requested the suit's withdrawal due to a settlement. The court ruled that recording the petitioner's statement was not mandatory, and the order's validity could not be challenged without concrete evidence of fraud or misrepresentation.----Citations/Precedents:Section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC)Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC)Defamation Ordinance 2002