Summary: The petitioner filed a suit which was decreed ex-parte. Subsequently, respondent (Mst. Bilqees) filed an application under section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking to challenge the ex-parte proceedings. The court directed both parties to present evidence related to this application. The petitioner's counsel argues that the orders to decline reopening the case were influenced by personal reasons and that justice demands the pending applications under section 12(2) CPC be decided on merits rather than dismissed on technical grounds. The petitioner's side was allegedly closed during the pendency of a transfer application, and the petitioner claims the closure was due to tampering with diaries and hearing dates. She filed proceedings under section 12(2) CPC against the ex-parte proceedings, and the court ordered evidence to be presented on the issues framed in her application. The respondent's counsel argues that the petitioner repeatedly sought adjournments, leading to the closure of his side on multiple occasions. The judges find that the petitioner sought numerous adjournments and conclude that his conduct suggests avoidance of proceedings. They emphasize that indulgence is typically granted to vigilant parties, not those who act indolently. The judges find that the orders to close the petitioner's side were based on sound legal principles and not open to challenge on constitutional grounds.

Summary: The petitioner seeks the annulment of a judgment passed by the court, which affirmed judgments and decrees from lower courts in favor of respondents No. 1 to 3 regarding a suit for possession against Muhammad Akram and others. The petitioner argues that he was a necessary party as a legal heir of Muhammad Akram and should have been impleaded in the proceedings. The petitioner challenges the rejection of his application under section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) by the trial court, claiming it was wrongfully dismissed and not maintainable. The court, in its order, examines the legality of the petitioner's application under section 12(2) CPC and concludes that it was wrongly filed before a Division Bench, but it should have been filed before the Single Bench that decided the original writ petition. The court also considers whether the non-impleading of the petitioner as a legal heir is fatal to the case and finds that the plaintiffs/respondents concealed facts by not mentioning the petitioner's name in their list of legal representatives. The court rules in favor of the petitioner, accepting the petition and setting aside the impugned order, directing the case to be deemed pending and requesting an amended memo of parties.

Summary: The petitioner has filed this revision petition to challenge two orders passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class and other by the learned District Judge. The defendants did not appear before the court despite substituted service, and an ex-parte judgment and decree were passed in favor of the petitioner. The defendants subsequently filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree, which was dismissed by the learned trial Court. The petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for the dismissal of the defendant's application was also dismissed by the trial Court. The petitioner then appealed to the learned District Judge, but the appeal was also dismissed.The petitioner's counsel argues that the ex-parte judgment and decree being appealable, the defendant's miscellaneous application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree was not competent. The counsel contends that once a defendant is proceeded against ex-parte after adopting all legal modes, they should not be allowed to seek the setting aside of the same. The court reviews the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and the definitions of "decree" and "ex-parte decree." It is concluded that an ex-parte judgment and decree can be challenged by filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, a review petition, an appeal, or an application under section 12(2) of CPC. The court observes that the case-law cited by the petitioner's counsel is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed.

Summary: [Scope of Civil Procedure Code CPC (O.XXXIX, Rule.1 & 2 Interim Injunction)] For the purpose of existence or absence of a prima facie case in relation to exercise underOrder XXXIX rules 1 & 2, facts canvassed by both sides have to be examined and it is onpreponderance of facts as based on documentary material and averments in the way of affidavitsthat concept of arguable case has to be determined. In addition, while deciding application underOrder XXXIX rules 1&2 CPC, Court is required to travel beyond four corners of plaint todetermine, though tentatively, as to on what facts, finding is to be based. Thus spectrum of OrderXXXIX rules 1 & 2 CPC is broader and more comprehensive

Summary: O.IX,R-13,S.12(2) CPC:Suit for damages,setting aside of ex-parte decree,law helps the vigilant & not the indolent

Summary: PLJ 2011 Lahore 702 [Multan Bench Multan] Present Nasir Saeed Sheikh J GHULAM MUHAMMAD - - Petitioner versus MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR and 14 others - - Respondents WP No 1920 of 2011 decided on 132011 Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) - - - - - - S 12 (2) - - Constitution of Pakistan 1973 Art 199 - - Constitutional petition - - Mother on behalf of her minor children executed compromise - - Effect of - - During pendency of suits parties allegedly entered into compromise - - Suits were dismissed as withdrawn - - When compromise was executed respondents were minors - - Mother of minors undertook finalize the proceedings of compromise after obtaining necessary permission from the guardian judge - - Challenge to uS 12 (2) of CPC - - Application was dismissed byt rial Court - - Case was remanded by First Appellate Court - - Assailed through instant petition - - Validity - - It was admitted position that the mother of minors did not make a statement before the Court and only brother appeared and made statement regarding exchange of property belonging to minors with property belonging to petitioner - - Mother of minors was not granted by permission by guardian judge to enter into compromise or dispose of property belonging to minors therefore proceedings of compromise were without any authorization and suffered from inherent illegality [P 705] A B Guardians and Wards Act 1890 (VIII of 1890) - - - - - - S 29 - - Scope of - - Specific bar for guardian to enter into any transaction for disposal of property of minor - - Held Guardian of person and property was appointed under the provisions of Guardians and Wards Act specifically deals with powers of a guardian appointed by judge guardian Court and S 29 of Act 1890 creates a specific bar for guardian of property to enter into any transaction for disposal of property belonging to a minor without prior permission of the Court [P 706] C PLD 1991 SC 1131 and PLD 1989 Pesh 32 Malik Shahzad Fareed Langrial Advocate for PetitionerJudgement Result:Petition dismissed

Summary: S.11,12(2),O.VII,R-10 CPC,S.42 Specific Relief Act:Conversion of civil suit to 12(2) application-suo moto power of revisional court-not warranted

Summary: S.12(2) CPC,S.42 SRA:suit for declaration--conversion of suit into application u/s 12(2)

Summary: Sections 12(2) & 151 Civil Procedure CCivil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------Ss. 12(2) & 151---Petitioner's application under S.12(2), C.P.C. for setting aside thedecree in favour of respondents was dismissed by the Trial Court---Appellate Courtdismissed the appeal---Petitioners/ applicants contended that they were shareholders andowners of the property in question but were not impleaded as necessary party by therespondents who obtained the decree through. fraud and misrepresentation in collusive suit---Validity---Petitioners and one set of respondents were closely related to each other andwere sharing common houses---Petitioners' contention that they came to know about themutation when their bazgars refused to pay their share, in circumstances, could not bebelieved---Petitioners' request for remand of the case for establishing fraud andmisrepresentation after recording of evidence could only be accepted after they hadestablished prima facie case by showing evidence or source of their title to the property andjustifying their ignorance of the pending proceedings---Petitioners/applicants having failed toproduce any. specific documents to prove their title---Petitioners could not disclose evennames of their bazgars or the extent of their share in the produce etc.---Nothing was broughton record to show applicant's share in the land---Petitioners/applicants failed to establish theplea of fraud and misrepresentation---Application was dismissed in circumstances.

Summary: PLJ 2009 Lahore 443 Present Mian Saqib Nisar J ZAHIDA BIBI (WIDOW) and 4 others - - Petitioners versus NEAR SULTANA (WIDOW) and 15 others - - Respondents WP No 141 of 2006 heard on 4122008 Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) - - - - - - Ss 12 (2) 115 - - Constitution of Pakistan 1973 Art 199 - - Constitutional petition - - Judgment decree on the basis of fraud - - Challenge to - - Dismissal of petition - - Conceding statement had not been recorded by presiding officer of the Court - - Name of the counsel out of the two who was present was not mentioned - - Counsel was never examined as witness - - Only the number of NIC was mentioned without retaining its copy on record - - There was no order on record that the referee was ever appointed or was directed by the Court to act as so - - Such facts spoke loud about fraud but was glaringly ignored by lower Courts on the basis of non - reading or misreading of evidence - - Petition accepted [Pp 447 448] A B D Conciliation Committee - - - - - - Part of Secretary - - Matter was before the Secretary - - Validity - - Whereas the secretary is not a part of conciliation committee under law and had no jurisdiction to proceed with it [P 449] F Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) - - - - - - S 12 (2) - - Decree against a dead person - - Legal heirs were not brought on record - - Validity - - During the proceeding respondent died and admitted legal heirs were not even brought on record and even it was not spelt out from record - - Held If the facts of death was disclosed to the Court before passing of the decree therefore decree was obtained against a dead person [P 448] C Unsigned Document - - - - - - Unsigned document by Chairman Union Council - - No copy of notice was brought on record - - Neither any proof who authored the notice nor any entry about receipt of the notice in record of union council - - No postal record was produced - - Validity - - All the documents of the proceedings before union council are not signed by the chairman and upon inquiry it was found that such proceedings were not genuine thus no sanctity in law can be attached thereto [P 449] E Miss Shazia Hassan Advocate for Petitioners Mr Ahmad Waheed Khan Advocate for RespondentsJudgement Result:Order accordingly.