Summary: The background involved a suit filed by Haji Abdul Hakim Khan for the recovery of Rs.15,30,000/-. The parties had initially expressed their willingness to resolve the dispute through their counsels acting as referees. However, the judgment highlighted that the proceedings took an irregular turn when, on 03.05.2017, the referees submitted a report (Ex.C.1) and recommended a decree in favor of the respondent without proper consideration and opportunity for objections.The petitioner, dissatisfied with the decree, filed an appeal, which was disposed of with an observation to explore alternate remedies. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C., alleging fraud and unauthorized statements by counsel/referees. The Additional District Judge dismissed this application, leading to the current revision.The judgment scrutinized the legal intricacies, emphasizing that the counsels, acting as referees, exceeded their role by reaching a decision rather than providing information. It highlighted the lack of due process, collusion, and the petitioner's right to object. The court concluded that the decree was obtained through serious errors, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the petitioner's application under section 12(2), C.P.C. The case was directed to be decided afresh, providing an opportunity for objections and evidence.

Summary: The appellants did not file an appeal against this judgment within the prescribed period of limitation. Instead, they filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) before the Banking Court, which was dismissed on November 7, 2017. The appellants did not challenge this order either. In the appeal, the appellants' lawyer argued that their challenge centered around the calculation of the amount decreed in the original judgment. They contended that the Banking Court had incorrectly quantified the amount, rendering the judgment and the resulting decree unenforceable. They also claimed that the Impugned Order dismissed their application under Section 47 CPC without properly considering their arguments. The bank's lawyer countered by pointing out that the appellants had obtained financial facilities from the bank in 2005 but defaulted on repayment. The bank's counsel highlighted that the original judgment from 2016 remained unchallenged, as did the 12(2) Order from 2017. The bank argued that the Impugned Order accurately addressed the appellants' application under Section 47 CPC and that the appeal was without merit. The court, after hearing both sides and reviewing relevant documentation, noted that neither the original judgment nor the 12(2) Order had been challenged by the appellants. Therefore, the court's focus was on whether the Impugned Order was within the jurisdiction of the executing court. The court underscored that the primary issue was whether the executing court's dismissal of the Section 47 CPC application was justified. The court found that the appellants were essentially attempting to challenge the quantification of the decretal amount in the original judgment through their appeal against the Impugned Order. In conclusion, the court held that the appellants failed to establish grounds for interfering with the Impugned Order, and thus, upheld the decision. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

Summary: The background of the case involves an application under section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, filed by Ajaeb Khan (predecessor of the petitioners), seeking to make an arbitration award of 23.12.1989 a rule of the court. The application was granted by the Civil Judge on 14.3.1990. Subsequently, an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. was filed by Mehr Muhammad Murad and others, claiming fraud, collusion, and misrepresentation in obtaining the decree.The Civil Judge, on 28.5.2011, allowed the application under section 12(2), C.P.C., setting aside the order and decree of 14.3.1990. The petitioner's revision petition against this decision was also dismissed on 02.7.2016.The petitioner argues that the lower courts' orders are unsustainable, claiming that the respondents based their rights on an agreement to sell, which was assigned to Karim Bakhsh, the petitioner's ascendant. The petitioner contends that the agreement did not confer the right to sue.The courts, after examining the evidence, found that the decree was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. The alleged agreement for arbitration lacked authority, and the award, which declared ownership of property, was unregistered, making it legally ineffective.Consequently, the High Court, after considering the arguments and reviewing the evidence, concluded that the writ petition lacked merit and dismissed it.

Summary: Any person, aggrieved therefrom execution of a decree, instead of filing an application U/S 12(2) CPC, may take recourse, thereunder, the provisions contained in section 47 CPC accordingly, which keeping in view may be treated as a suit or if any suit is instituted challenging the execution process, may be treated as an application u/s 47 CPC.

Summary: (a) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)-------S. 15---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)---Eviction petition---Tenant claiming adverse title---Abuse of process of court---Scope---Eviction petition filed by landlord was allowed and the said order was maintained up to High Court---Tenant, in execution proceedings, filed an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. wherein he claimed that the attorney of landlord had sold out the demised premises to him---Application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. was concurrently dismissed by executing court and appellate court---Validity---Landlord had never informed the tenant about his intentions to sale the demised premises---Tenant, before entering into sale purchase of the demised premises with the attorney, should have insisted upon withdrawal of execution petition filed against him---Tenant could not defeat the order of Rent Controller by claiming title adverse to the title of landlord who had put him in possession of demised premises as tenant---Petition was dismissed and Rent Controller was directed by the High Court to issue writ of possession of the demised premises within 15 days. [Paras. 7 & 9 of the judgment] Muhammad Nisar v. Izhar Ahmed Shaikh and others PLD 2014 SC 347 rel.(b) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)-------S. 15---Eviction petition---Adverse title, claim of---Scope---Tenant cannot defeat the order of Rent Controller by claiming title adverse to the title of landlord who has put him in possession of demised premises as tenant. [Para. 7 of the judgment]

Summary: Matters relating to the remedy and jurisdiction are usually considered to procedural in nature. Application u/s 12(2) CPC is governed by Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which provides a period of three years for filling petition u/s 12(2) CPC.

Summary: Background:The petitioner, Mst. Zaib-un-Nisa, challenged the judgments and decrees of the Civil Judge Ist Class Gilgit dated November 30, 2015, and the Additional District Judge Gilgit dated April 20, 2016. The litigation began in 1972 when Mohammad Essa filed a suit for declaration and possession of certain land against Zaib-un-Nisa, which was decreed in his favor in 1975. Zaib-un-Nisa withdrew her initial appeal in 1981. She later filed an application under Section 12(2) CPC in 2013, claiming fraud and misrepresentation, which was dismissed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court.---Issues:Whether the petitioner disclosed a cause of action in the plaint.Whether the judgments and decrees of the lower courts were valid and justified.Whether the petitioner?s application under Section 12(2) CPC was maintainable and filed within the prescribed time limit.Whether the petitioner was aware of the suit against her and whether the decree was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation.Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court held that the petitioner did not disclose a cause of action in the plaint and that her application under Section 12(2) CPC was time-barred, being filed 38 years after the original decree. The court found no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining the decree. The lower courts? judgments and decrees were upheld.----Citations/Precedents:Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPCSection 12(2) CPCArticle 181 of the Limitation ActDetailed Reasoning:Cause of Action: The trial court found that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action, a requirement under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC.Application Under Section 12(2) CPC: The application was filed 38 years after the original decree, far beyond the 3-year limit provided by Article 181 of the Limitation Act.Knowledge of Suit: Evidence showed that the petitioner was aware of the suit and had actively participated in the proceedings through her attorney.Fraud and Misrepresentation: The court found no proof that the decree was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation.Conclusion:The revision petition was dismissed, upholding the lower courts' judgments. The petitioner's failure to disclose a cause of action and the excessive delay in filing the application under Section 12(2) CPC were primary reasons for the rejection. The judgments and decrees were found to be based on proper appreciation of evidence, with no jurisdictional error or material irregularity.----Outcome:The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. The concurrent findings of both lower courts were deemed correct and did not warrant interference.

Summary: Even from the contents of the application under Order-9 Rule-13 CPC petitioner has not made out any case to prove that there are plausible reason and sufficient cause for his absence but no such details are mentioned in the said application. Similar is the case of application for condonation of delay accompanying the said application. in case the ex-parte evidence was not recorded on his application under section 12(2) CPC, the petitioner could have been allowed to produce pro and contra evidence in support of his application but that remedy has been exhausted by him.

Summary: Section 12(2) CPC. Recording of evidence is not necessary in every case under section 12 (2) CPC, however, where facts and circumstances of a case demands recording of evidence qua factual aspects, then the parties should be provided an opportunity to examine witnesses and produce documentary evidence. Revision allowed, case remanded.

Summary: Challenge to a decree/order/judgment on ground of fraud or misrepresentation. Provisions of Section 12 (2) CPC could only be pressed into service where fraud was played or misrepresentation was made during proceedings in a suit and not if done outside the court. Plea that elder/respectables trying to arrive at a compromise outside the court, prevented a party from appearing in court, was not tantamount to any fraud committed. Non-production of evidence during court proceedings, related to procedure and merits of a case did not amount to fraud or misrepresentation committed during court proceedings. Falsity of claim to the knowledge of a person putting forward such claim was not a ground for setting aside a decree on ground of fraud under Section 12 (2) CPC.