Summary: PLJ 2009 Karachi 69 Present Nadeem Azhar Siddiqi J MUHAMMAD JAMEEL KHAN and 10 others - - Applicants versus MUHAMMAD ALI ZAKI KHAN and 4 others - - Respondents JM No 20 of 2007 in Suit No 554 of 1987 and CMA No 4865 of 2007 decided on 2882008 Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) - - - - - - S 12 (2) - - - - Scope - - Decree was obtained by fraud misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction - - Application for setting aside judgment and decree - - Maintainability - - Judgment was passed by High Court which judgment was maintained by High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction and also by Supreme Court - - Applicants had assailed the judgment before of High Court as trial Court - - Validity - - Word final as appearing in S12 (2) CPC had been defined as last in the series of judgment decree or order which was no longer alterable by Court passing that judgment decree or order and had attained finality - - In case of appeal decree of trial Court except in exceptional cases merged in the decree passed by appellate Court and was capable of execution - - Merger took place irrespective of fact whether decree of trial Court was affirmed or reversed - - Judgment passed by High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction was challenged but Supreme Court merely reaffirmed the judgment of appellate Court by refusing its leave to appeal - - Final judgment and decree was passed by High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction - - Application under S12 (2) CPC filed in High Court as trial Court was not maintainable - - Application was dismissed [Pp 71 72] A B C 1997 CLC 1260 2005 CLC 1821 2000 SCMR 900 1993 SCMR 1171 PLD 1991 SC 197 PLD 1995 SC 564 and 1999 SCMR 1516 ref M Qaiser Qureshi Advocate for ApplicantsPetitioners Respondent No 1 (present in person)Judgement Result:Application dismissed.

Summary: -----PLJ 2008 Lahore 308 (DB) -----Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) – Section 12(2), Order IX Rule 13, Order XLI Rule 21 – Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 – Section 3(2) – Maintainability of Intra Court Appeal (ICA) ---The petitioners filed an application to set aside an ex-parte judgment, which was dismissed. Subsequently, they filed an Intra Court Appeal (ICA) under Section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, which was dismissed by the appellate forum. The court clarified that an application under Section 12(2) of the CPC should be filed before the appellate forum, and provisions under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, applicable to writ proceedings, permit a re-hearing if justified. ----Held: The single judge exercised jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, and in light of precedent from Amin-ud-Din Khan’s case, an ICA was maintainable when other remedies, such as review, had not been utilized against the judgment. The court allowed the ICA, thereby permitting re-hearing of the ex-parte judgment. [Pages 309-310] -----Background: The appellants filed an Intra-Court Appeal (ICA) against an order dismissing their application (C.M. No. 2297/04) for setting aside an ex-parte judgment in a writ petition (W.P. No. 117-R/98) on grounds of non-service. The original application, filed under Section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), alleged the ex-parte judgment should be reconsidered due to the lack of proper notification. The application was initially dismissed on the grounds that, since an ICA had already been filed and dismissed, the application under Section 12(2) CPC should have been filed before the appellate forum. -----Issues: 1- Whether the application under Section 12(2) CPC to set aside an ex-parte judgment can be filed before the original court when an ICA has already been dismissed. -----2- Whether Order IX Rule 13 CPC, applicable to setting aside ex-parte judgments, is valid in writ proceedings. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the application under Section 12(2) CPC was competent before the original court, as the doctrine of merger did not apply given the ICA’s dismissal solely based on the appellants’ lack of standing, without addressing the merits. The court further recognized that the application could be treated under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, which allows for setting aside ex-parte judgments and is applicable to writ proceedings. Consequently, the court allowed the ICA and reinstated the application (C.M. No. 2297/04) for reconsideration. -----Citations/Precedents: Maqsood Ahmed Siddique v. Nisar Ahmad and others (2003 SCMR 1552): ICA not maintainable when judgment passed in appellate jurisdiction. Amin-ud-Din Khan v. WAPDA and others (2004 CLC 382): ICA was not maintainable where appellant had availed of the remedy of review.

Summary: PLJ 1993 Lahore 343 Challenge: The petitioner contended that since the pre-emption decree had been executed and the vendees had withdrawn the decretal amount, an application for rescission of the decree could not be filed. Legal Principle: It was undisputed that no decree could be passed in a pre-emption suit after 31-07-1986 on the ground of relationship with the vendor. Held: The pre-emption decree passed after 31-07-1986 was a nullity and without jurisdiction. Therefore, the court could competently recall it under Section 12(2) of the CPC to prevent a misapplication of law and miscarriage of justice. Petition dismissed. [P. 345] A. PLJ 1986 SC 576 ref. -----Background: A pre-emption suit was filed following the sale of land on 9.9.1981. Two pre-emptors claimed superior rights based on their relationship with the vendors. The trial court decreed the suit on 20.10.1987, dividing the land between the two pre-emptors, subject to payment by specified dates. The petitioner executed the pre-emption decree after depositing the required amount. However, on 1.2.1989, the respondents filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (C.P.C.), seeking the setting aside of the pre-emption decree, claiming it was invalid as no decree could be passed after the target date of 31.7.1986 based on relationship with the vendor. -----Issues: 1- Whether a pre-emption decree passed after the target date of 31.7.1986 could be validly challenged under Section 12(2) of the C.P.C. -----2- Whether the execution of the decree and withdrawal of the pre-emption money by the vendees estopped the respondents from seeking rescission of the decree. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Pre-emption Decree Invalidity: The court held that the pre-emption decree passed after 31.7.1986 based solely on the relationship with the vendor was a nullity. The court had no jurisdiction to pass such a decree, and it could be recalled under Section 12(2) of the C.P.C. to prevent a miscarriage of justice. --Execution and Withdrawal of Money: The mere execution of the decree and withdrawal of money by the vendees did not estop them from seeking rescission of the invalid decree. The court clarified that neither consent nor estoppel could confer jurisdiction where none existed. The petition was dismissed. The court upheld the decision to set aside the pre-emption decree as it was passed without jurisdiction after the target date. The court also ruled that restitution was required to restore the legitimate rights of the parties. -----Citations/Precedents: PLJ 1986 SC 576

Summary: Background:This case involves the appeals and petitions filed by Sahabzadi Maharunisa and another as appellants/petitioners against Mst. Ghulam Sughran and another as respondents. The appeals are numbered Civil Appeals Nos. 1176 and 1177 of 2015, and Civil Petition No. 1428-L of 2015. These were filed against the order dated June 11, 2015, of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench. The case primarily focuses on the interpretation and application of the doctrine of merger as it relates to judgments from different courts and the appropriate forum for filing applications under Section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (C.P.C.).---Issues:How does the doctrine of merger apply in cases where judgments or orders are affirmed, reversed, or modified by a higher forum?What is the correct forum for filing applications under Section 12(2) of the C.P.C. in various scenarios of judgment affirmation, reversal, or modification?---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court clarified the application of the doctrine of merger and the procedural aspects concerning Section 12(2) of the C.P.C. It held:The final judgment or order for the purpose of an application under Section 12(2) C.P.C. is that of the last court in the series, regardless of affirmation, reversal, or modification.In cases where the Supreme Court reaffirms the High Court's judgment by refusing leave to appeal, the final judgment remains with the High Court.Conversely, if the Supreme Court reverses the High Court's judgment and establishes new findings, the Supreme Court's judgment is considered final.The doctrine of merger applies broadly to cases where a lower forum's judgment is affirmed by a higher court unless specific exceptions apply, such as non-prosecution or lack of jurisdiction.----Citations/Precedents:Nasrullah Khan and others v. Mukhtar-ul-Hassan and others, PLD 2013 SC 478F.A. Khan v. The Government of Pakistan, PLD 1964 SC 520Maulvi Abdul Qayyum v. Syed Ali Asghar Shah and others, 1992 SCMR 241Jeydeb Agarwala v. Baitulmal Karkhana Ltd., PLD 1965 SC 37 (cited as per incuriam)Muhammad Yousaf through Legal Heirs and others v. Noor Din and others, PLD 2002 SC 391Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. M/s Amritlal Bhogilal and Co., AIR 1958 SC 868Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. East India Commercial Co. Ltd., Calcutta and others, AIR 1963 SC 1124Lakshminarayan Guin and others v. Niranjan Modak, [(1985) 1 SCC 270]Kunhayammed and others v. State of Kerala and another, AIR 2000 SC 2587Bakshi Dev Raj and another v. Sudheer Kumar, AIR 2011 SC 3137

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---S.12(2)---Setting aside judgment, decree or order on ground of fraud, misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction---Party having contested proceedings throughout---Maintainability---Defendant had contested the suit, produced evidence and unsuccessfully challenged the decree before the appellate and revisional forums up to the High Court---A party which remained associated with and fully contested the proceedings could not, after remaining unsuccessful before successive forums, invoke S.12(2), C.P.C. merely because certain facts allegedly came to its knowledge subsequently---Such party had every opportunity during the original proceedings to plead its case, rebut the opposing case and protect its rights---Any mistake, omission or slackness on its part did not confer a fresh right to seek annulment of the decree through an application under S.12(2), C.P.C. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---Ss.12(2) & 114, O.XIV---Framing or non-framing of issue---Effect---Where a matter arose from the pleadings, the parties were entitled to produce evidence in support of their respective pleaded cases---Non-framing of a particular issue did not, by itself, constitute a ground for retrial, remand, review or proceedings under S.12(2), C.P.C.---Party which failed to seek or press for framing of a specific issue at the appropriate stage could not subsequently claim reversal of the judgment or reopening of the proceedings on that ground---Even if the plaintiff had not pressed the plea of minority during trial, such circumstance did not furnish the unsuccessful defendant with a cause to invoke S.12(2), C.P.C. (c) Constitution of Pakistan---Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Concurrent findings of fact---Reappraisal of evidence---Scope---Where the Trial Court and appellate court had recorded concurrent findings of fact on the basis of evidence, the High Court, while exercising constitutional jurisdiction, could not substitute its own conclusion merely because another view of the evidence was possible---Jurisdiction under Art.199 was confined to examining whether the subordinate courts or tribunals had acted within the limits of their lawful jurisdiction---An error of fact, however serious, was not amenable to correction in constitutional jurisdiction unless it resulted in or disclosed a jurisdictional defect---Appellant was required to establish a jurisdictional defect in the orders dismissing his application under S.12(2), C.P.C., but failed to do so. Cited Case: Muhammad Hussain Munir v. Sikandar PLD 1974 SC 139 (d) Registration Act (XVI of 1908)---S.23---Delayed presentation of document for registration---Registered power of attorney---Evidentiary value---Power of attorney was executed on 04.02.1980 but registered on 05.08.1981, approximately one and a half years after its execution---Court observed that S.23 required a document to be presented for registration within the prescribed period---Nevertheless, a registered document carried strong evidentiary value and legal protection because registration followed an official process of verification---Presumption of correctness and truth attached to a registered instrument and the same could not be disregarded merely on the basis of an allegation raised after conclusion of the original proceedings. Cited Cases: Anjuman-e-Khuddam-ul-Quran, Faisalabad v. Lt. Col. (R) Najam Hameed PLD 2020 SC 390 Abdul Aziz v. Abdul Hameed 2022 SCMR 842 (e) Constitution of Pakistan---Art.199---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)---Dismissal of constitutional petition---Legality---Trial Court dismissed the application under S.12(2), C.P.C., Revisional Court maintained such dismissal and High Court declined interference in constitutional jurisdiction---Appellant failed to point out any want or excess of jurisdiction, perversity or other jurisdictional defect in the concurrent orders---High Court had rightly dismissed the constitutional petition and no ground existed for interference in appeal. Disposition---Appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the High Court maintaining dismissal of the application under S.12(2), C.P.C. was upheld.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts.4, 5, 23, 24 & 25---Overseas Pakistanis---Protection of legal and property rights---Equality before law---Overseas Pakistanis, despite residing abroad, remained citizens of Pakistan and were entitled to same constitutional safeguards, remedies and protection of law as citizens residing within country---Their property rights were protected under Arts.23 and 24, while Arts.4, 5 and 25 guaranteed lawful treatment and equal protection---Overseas Pakistanis could not place themselves above law, claim preferential treatment or bypass due process merely by reason of residence abroad---Nevertheless, practical disadvantages faced by them in pursuing litigation justified affirmative institutional measures and special procedures for expeditious protection of their lawful rights. Tahir Mirza v. Saleha Mehmood, DCO and others (2019 YLR 2852); Tanvir Chishti v. City Police Officer and another (PLD 2020 Lahore 453); Abdul Wali through Special Attorney v. State Bank of Pakistan through Director Banking Conduct and Consumer Protection Department and 4 others (2020 CLD 147); Muhammad Yaqoob v. Commissioner Lahore Division etc. (2021 CLD 392) and Haji Muhammad Yunis (deceased) through legal heirs and another v. Mst. Farukh Sultan and others (2022 SCMR 1282) rel. (b) Punjab Establishment of Special Courts (Overseas Pakistanis Property) Act, 2025--- ----Preamble---Object and purpose of enactment---Interpretation---Act was enacted to secure and protect ownership and possession rights of Overseas Pakistanis in respect of immovable property and to provide a specialized, expeditious and accessible mechanism for resolution of their disputes---Preamble, though not an operative part of statute, served as a useful guide for discovering legislative purpose, mischief sought to be remedied and intention underlying substantive provisions---Act introduced specialized judicial forums, strict timelines, electronic filing, video-link evidence and mechanisms aimed at overcoming procedural delays faced by litigants residing abroad. Director General, FIA and others v. Kamran Iqbal and others (2016 SCMR 447) rel. (c) Punjab Establishment of Special Courts (Overseas Pakistanis Property) Act, 2025--- ----Ss.9, 10, 11 & 12---Expeditious adjudication, appeal, execution and protective orders---Legislative scheme---Section 9 prescribed strict period for disposal, restricted adjournments and empowered Special Court to summon official record---Section 10 provided a streamlined appellate remedy while preventing routine suspension of decrees and interlocutory obstruction---Section 11 automatically converted proceedings into execution after decree, authorized assistance of police and law-enforcement agencies and permitted imposition of penalty for mala fide objections intended to delay execution---Section 12 empowered Special Court to restrain alienation, attach property, transfer possession, appoint receivers and pass orders even against third parties or benami holders---Collectively, provisions demonstrated legislative intent that judgments concerning property of Overseas Pakistanis should not be frustrated through procedural devices, fraudulent transfers or collateral proceedings. (d) Punjab Establishment of Special Courts (Overseas Pakistanis Property) Act, 2025--- ----Execution of order for delivery of possession---Objection petition based upon subsequent ex parte decree---Maintainability---Special Court had earlier recalled ejectment order and directed petitioner to hand over vacant possession to attorney of Overseas Pakistani owner---Challenge to said order through constitutional petition had already been dismissed, while subsequent appeal against consequential order for delivery of possession had been withdrawn---Orders directing restoration of possession had, therefore, attained finality---Petitioner could not resist their implementation by subsequently obtaining an ex parte judgment and decree from Civil Court---Rights crystallized through final judicial determinations could not be defeated by a later decree obtained in collateral proceedings. (e) Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908)--- ----S.12(2)---Ex parte decree---Suspension of operation---Legal effect---Ex parte judgment and decree relied upon by petitioner had subsequently been suspended by Civil Court upon application under S.12(2), C.P.C.---Once operation of decree stood suspended, petitioner could derive no legal advantage therefrom and such decree could not furnish a lawful basis to obstruct or nullify implementation of earlier binding judicial orders---Even otherwise, a decree obtained subsequent to orders sought to be executed could not eclipse determinations that had already attained finality, particularly where validity of subsequent decree itself remained under challenge. (f) Administration of justice--- ----Finality of judicial determinations---Successive and collateral proceedings---Reopening concluded issues---Petitioner, under guise of filing objections, sought to reopen matters already finally adjudicated---Chronology of proceedings showed repeated resort to different forums with apparent object of frustrating implementation of binding orders---Judicial process could not be permitted to become an instrument for defeating final determinations through successive, collateral or ex parte proceedings---Such conduct constituted abuse of process of law. (g) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Nature and scope---Re-agitation of concluded matters---Constitutional jurisdiction was supervisory and extraordinary in nature---It could not be invoked to re-agitate issues which had already attained finality between parties or to defeat implementation of binding judicial orders by relying upon a subsequent ex parte decree, especially where operation of such decree stood suspended---No jurisdictional defect, illegality, material irregularity or violation of law was found in order of Special Court dismissing objections---Interference under Art.199 was, therefore, unwarranted. Disposition--- Constitutional petition, being devoid of merit, was dismissed.

Summary: (a) Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908)--- ----S. 64---West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)---Execution of decree for maintenance of minor children---Attachment of immovable property---Transfer of attached property through subsequent mutation---Validity---Property measuring one kanal was attached by the Executing Court on 16.07.2021 in execution of a decree for recovery of maintenance of minor children---Mutation transferring the attached property in favour of petitioners was sanctioned subsequently on 21.12.2022---Once a valid attachment order had been passed and remained operative, judgment-debtor was legally incompetent to create any interest in the attached property so as to prejudice or defeat the rights of decree-holder---Principle embodied in S.64, C.P.C. reflected the settled rule that a private transfer of attached property effected after attachment was void against all claims enforceable under the attachment---Object of attachment was to preserve the sanctity of judicial process and prevent a judgment-debtor from frustrating execution through clandestine alienations---Subsequent mutation could not defeat the attachment already operating against the property---Cancellation of mutation by Executing Court was a necessary legal consequence of the subsisting attachment and was not without lawful authority. Amjad Iqbal v. Mst. Nida Sohail and others (2015 SCMR 128) and Muhammad Sadiq v. Dr. Sabira Sultana (2002 SCMR 1950) rel. (b) Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908)--- ----S. 64---Transfer of attached property---Bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration---Constructive notice---Plea of petitioners that they were bona fide purchasers without notice was devoid of substance---Order of attachment passed by a competent Court constituted constructive notice to the public at large---Subsequent transferee was deemed to have notice of attachment and could not avoid its legal consequences by merely pleading ignorance---Executing Court and Revisional Court had concurrently found that petitioners were closely related to judgment-debtor and were aware of pending litigation---Timing of transfer, relationship between parties and subsisting attachment unmistakably indicated that transaction was intended to defeat realization of maintenance decree---Transfer effected after attachment was not legally sustainable and could not defeat rights of decree-holder. Muhammad Sadiq v. Dr. Sabira Sultana (2002 SCMR 1950) rel. (c) Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908)--- ----S. 64---Specific performance decree---Consent decree obtained after attachment of property---Effect---Decree for specific performance in favour of predecessor of petitioners was passed after property had already been attached in execution of maintenance decree---Judgment-debtor had filed a consenting written statement and unequivocally admitted the claim while execution proceedings were pending and attachment was already operative---Sequence of events prima facie suggested that civil proceedings had been utilized as a device to create an apparent legal shield against execution of maintenance decree---Attachment already operating against property could not be nullified by a subsequent consent decree between judgment-debtor and another party---Decree for specific performance did not confer any superior right upon petitioners capable of defeating rights of decree-holder in execution proceedings. (d) Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908)--- ----S. 12(2)---West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S.13(3)---Execution of maintenance decree---Pendency of application challenging decree for specific performance---Whether execution proceedings were liable to be suspended---Mere pendency of proceedings under S.12(2), C.P.C. did not automatically stay operation of the decree or suspend execution proceedings pending before a competent Court---Unless a competent Court specifically restrained continuation of execution proceedings, Executing Court was bound to proceed in accordance with law---No order staying execution proceedings had been produced---Pendency of application under S.12(2), C.P.C. was, therefore, of no legal consequence for deciding validity of execution proceedings. Mst. Safia Bibi and others v. Additional District Judge and others (PLD 2019 Lahore 502) rel. (e) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----Execution order---Remedy---Proceedings initially instituted as appeal---Conversion into revision---Technicalities---Additional District Judge rightly noticed that proper remedy against execution order was revision under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964---Instead of dismissing proceedings on a technical ground, Court converted them into revision to advance substantial justice---Revisional Court independently appraised record and concurred with findings of Executing Court that mutation had been sanctioned during subsistence of attachment and was intended to frustrate execution of decree---Findings disclosed neither misreading or non-reading of evidence nor any jurisdictional infirmity. (f) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----Execution of maintenance decree---Sale of attached property through public auction---Persistent default by judgment-debtor---Procedural safeguards---Judgment-debtor had persistently defaulted in satisfying decree for maintenance of minor children and had deliberately avoided appearance before Executing Court---Order directing sale of attached property through public auction was a lawful continuation of execution proceedings---Executing Court appointed an independent auctioneer, fixed remuneration, prescribed publication schedule, directed public proclamation, ordered market valuation through concerned Patwari for fixation of reserve price and scheduled auction proceedings accordingly---No violation of any mandatory provision governing execution proceedings was established. (g) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)--- ----Maintenance of minor children---Nature and object---Duty of Court---Maintenance was not merely a money claim but embodied a continuing statutory obligation intended to secure welfare, sustenance and upbringing of minors---Courts were under a corresponding duty to ensure that maintenance decrees were not rendered illusory by permitting judgment-debtors to defeat execution through colourable, sham or collusive transfers of property---Conduct of a father seeking to avoid maintenance obligations through unlawful transactions could not be countenanced by a Court exercising parental jurisdiction---Orders cancelling subsequent mutation, maintaining attachment and directing auction were consistent with the obligation to protect lawful maintenance rights of minor children. Amjad Iqbal v. Mst. Nida Sohail and others (2015 SCMR 128) rel. (h) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Challenge to legal consequences of attachment order which had attained finality---Petitioners had not challenged original attachment order at the appropriate stage and approached High Court only after Executing Court declined to recognize a transfer made during subsistence of attachment---Constitutional jurisdiction could not be invoked to indirectly nullify legal consequences of an attachment that had attained finality---Parties could not be permitted to achieve indirectly what law did not permit them to do directly. (i) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Scope of constitutional jurisdiction---Concurrent findings of Executing Court and Revisional Court---Reappraisal of facts---Jurisdiction under Art.199 was supervisory and was not intended to provide another forum for reappraisal of facts or substitution of concurrent findings recorded by competent Courts---Interference was warranted only where impugned orders suffered from patent lack of jurisdiction, material illegality, procedural impropriety, violation of mandatory law or perversity resulting in miscarriage of justice---Petitioners failed to establish existence of any such ground---Courts below had correctly appreciated factual matrix, applied governing legal principles and recorded concurrent findings supported by material on record---No illegality, jurisdictional defect, material irregularity or perversity was found in the impugned orders. Disposition--- Writ petition, being devoid of merit, was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Summary: Dismissal of appeal is not an absolute bar to remedy of section 12(2) of CPC but facts and grounds of application are determining factors qua maintainability. --- (a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)----Ss.4, 5 & 29(2), Art.162-A---Civil revision---Condonation of delay---Maintainability of application under S.5---Effect of reintroduction of Art.162-A---Objection that application under S.5 was barred by restrictive operation of S.29(2) was misconceived after reintroduction of Art.162-A---Application for condonation of delay in filing civil revision was maintainable---Earlier precedents concerning exclusion of S.5 in absence of Art.162-A had lost efficacy to that extent. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)----S.4---Civil revision filed on first working day after summer vacation---Computation of limitation---Where prescribed period expired during Court vacation, filing on first day when Court reopened was within limitation---Civil revision instituted on first working day after summer vacation was competent and application for condonation had been filed merely by way of abundant caution---Absence of limitation objection in office objection sheet also supported conclusion that revision was instituted within time. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----S.115---Revisional jurisdiction---Suo motu exercise---Limitation objection---Where doubt existed regarding technical bar of limitation but impugned order disclosed jurisdictional illegality, High Court could exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice---Revisional power was available where subordinate Court had committed gross error in exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Cited Case: • Hafeez Ahmad and others v. Civil Judge, Lahore and others PLD 2012 SC 400 (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----S.12(2)---Fraud, misrepresentation and want of jurisdiction---Prior appeal against decree dismissed---Maintainability of subsequent application under S.12(2)---Dismissal of appeal did not create an absolute embargo against recourse to S.12(2), C.P.C.---Availability of remedy depended upon peculiar facts, nature of allegations and whether statutory requirements of S.12(2) were fulfilled---Court was required to examine contents of application and determine whether grounds of fraud, collusion or misrepresentation were distinct from grounds already adjudicated in appeal---Application could not be dismissed simpliciter merely because appellate remedy had previously been availed and decided. (e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----S.12(2)---Application filed after disposal of appeal---Distinct grounds of fraud---Jubilee General Insurance Company case---Distinguished---In cited case, application under S.12(2) had been filed during pendency of appeal and contents of application and grounds of appeal were found verbatim or analogous---Court in that case had examined substance of application rather than rejecting it solely because appeal was pending or had been decided---Where impugned order dismissed application merely on premise that appeal had already been availed, without scrutinizing pleaded fraud and concealment, reliance upon said precedent was erroneous. Distinguished Case: • Jubilee General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ravi Steel Company through Proprietor 2020 CLC 1440 (f) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----S.12(2)---Fraud, collusion, deceptive concealment and misrepresentation---Requirement of factual determination---Applicants specifically alleged that earlier suits concerning same grant and orders of withdrawal had been concealed to avoid adjudication of res judicata and that decrees had been obtained deceptively---Respondents disputed institution and ownership of such suits and asserted that proceedings were initiated after death of alleged grantee---Questions whether suits had been instituted by deceased, through alleged attorney or otherwise, and whether concealment thereof amounted to fraud or collusion, were disputed questions of fact---Such controversy could not be decided summarily and required framing of issues and recording of evidence. (g) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----S.12(2)---Fraud alleged in procurement of judgment and decree---Summary dismissal on maintainability---Legality---Where application contained specific instances of fraud, misrepresentation and deceptive concealment, Court was required to test compliance with S.12(2) and adjudicate allegations on evidence---Dismissal without examining merits of pleaded fraud amounted to gross jurisdictional error and material irregularity warranting interference under S.115, C.P.C. (h) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----S.12(2)---Forum---Challenge to original decree after appellate judgment---Application to Court passing last judgment---Where appeal had been decided, application under S.12(2) challenging legality of judgment and decree was maintainable before Court which had passed last judgment---Application filed within three years of appellate judgment was competent before Appellate Court. Cited Case: • Shahzadi Maharunisa and another v. Mst. Ghulam Sughran and another PLD 2016 SC 358 (i) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----S.12(2)---Allotment under Tube-Well Scheme---Absence of conclusively executed allotment letter or deed---Factual and legal effect---Whether non-issuance of final allotment document affected rights claimed by alleged grantee was a material question---Court dealing with application under S.12(2) was left to determine whether an additional issue should be framed regarding effect of absence of conclusively executed allotment letter or deed. Disposition---Civil revision allowed---Order dated 24.05.2022 dismissing application under S.12(2), C.P.C. set aside---Application deemed pending before Court concerned---Court directed to frame issues, permit parties to lead evidence and decide application afresh on merits---Observations made by High Court declared tentative and not to prejudice either party or influence final adjudication. Province of Punjab and others v. Mst. Azra Begum and others, Civil Revision No.1845 of 2023, Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, heard on 01.07.2026 and announced on 02.07.2026, approved for reporting.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----S.12(2)---Ex parte judgment and decree---Application alleging fraud, misrepresentation and want of jurisdiction---Scope of inquiry---Held, that jurisdiction under S.12(2), CPC is confined to examining whether the judgment, decree or order under challenge was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction---Court exercising S.12(2) jurisdiction is not required to conduct a full trial on all disputed questions relating to the merits of the original suit---Its function is to identify the vice affecting the impugned judgment within the meaning of S.12(2), CPC. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----S.12(2)---Judgment procured on basis of allegedly forged/bogus document---Exemption letter allegedly never issued by Lahore Development Authority---Fraud and misrepresentation---Held, that where an ex parte judgment had been passed on the basis of representations made regarding an allegedly forged or bogus exemption letter, the procuring of such judgment on the basis of that document constituted a matter falling within fraud and misrepresentation for purposes of S.12(2), CPC---Such allegation was sufficient to bring the impugned ex parte judgment within the corrective jurisdiction of S.12(2), CPC. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----S.12(2)---Genuineness of disputed document---Exemption letter---Triable issue in original suit---Held, that although genuineness of the exemption letter was the pivotal controversy between the parties, such question was not to be finally adjudicated in S.12(2) proceedings as if the court were deciding the original suit---Determination of authenticity/genuineness of the disputed exemption letter was a matter to be tried in the civil suit after restoration, through pleadings, framing of issues and recording of evidence---Court exercising S.12(2) jurisdiction travels beyond its scope if it finally determines disputed merits relating to the document itself. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----S.12(2)---O.IX, R.13---Setting aside ex parte judgment---Distinct jurisdictions---Held, that jurisdiction under O.IX, R.13, CPC and jurisdiction under S.12(2), CPC are materially distinct---Proceedings under O.IX, R.13 concern setting aside an ex parte decree on grounds relating to absence/non-service/sufficient cause, whereas S.12(2), CPC addresses whether a judgment, decree or order was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction---Knowledge of the ex parte judgment or alleged avoidance of appearance was not by itself conclusive against a S.12(2) application where fraud or misrepresentation in procurement of judgment was alleged. (e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----S.12(2)---Trial Court treating S.12(2) application as full trial of suit---Misconstruction of jurisdiction---Held, that the Trial Court misconstrued the scope of S.12(2), CPC by treating adjudication of the application akin to trial of the original suit and by proceeding to decide the genuineness of the disputed exemption letter on merits---Revisional Court also failed to appreciate the limited nature of S.12(2) jurisdiction---Such approach was legally unsustainable. (f) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----S.12(2)---Acceptance of application---Effect---Restoration of civil suit---Fresh decision uninfluenced by previous findings---Held, that once the S.12(2) application was accepted and the ex parte judgment set aside, the civil suits were to be treated as pending before the Trial Court---Trial Court was required to complete pleadings, frame issues, record evidence and decide the lis afresh---Findings previously recorded in impugned orders regarding genuineness of exemption letters were not to influence fresh adjudication. (g) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----S.12(2)---Doctrine of res judicata---Findings on genuineness of document in S.12(2) proceedings---Held, that if the Court exercising S.12(2) jurisdiction were to finally decide genuineness of the disputed document, subsequent re-adjudication of the same question in the restored suit could create complications relating to res judicata---Such consequence further supported the view that disputed merits of the document should be left for trial in the original suit, not conclusively determined in S.12(2) proceedings. Disposition: Constitutional petitions were allowed; orders dated 10.12.2024 and 30.05.2024 were set aside; applications under S.12(2), CPC were accepted; ex parte judgments were set aside; civil suits were deemed pending before the Trial Court for fresh decision after completion of pleadings, framing of issues and recording of evidence; no order as to costs. ---- "Jurisdiction under section 12(2) of CPC must not be confused with the jurisdiction to adjudicate genuineness of disputed document, subject matter of judgment under challenge."

Summary: a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 189 & 190---Binding effect of Supreme Court decisions---Finality of litigation---Reopening of concluded matter by subordinate authority---Declarant’s landholding determined; excess land resumed; matter travelled through appeal, revision, writ petition and ultimately Supreme Court---Supreme Court order dated 06.12.1986 affirming resumption attained finality---Subsequent de novo revision before Chairman, Federal Land Commission, entertained after twenty-four years without disclosure of earlier Supreme Court litigation---Held, subordinate authority could not reopen or re-adjudicate issue conclusively decided by Supreme Court; acceptance of revision and passing order dated 07.02.2011 was in clear violation of Art.189, as Supreme Court decision on question of law/principle bound all courts/authorities and could not be disregarded---Art.190 obligated executive and judicial authorities to act in aid of binding judgments; failure to respect finality undermined rule of law and uniform application of legal principles. (b) Administration of justice ----Res judicata---Concealment and abuse of process---Principle that once a matter is finally adjudicated by competent forum it cannot be reopened through successive proceedings---Revision filed without disclosing prior round of litigation up to Supreme Court amounted to concealment and an attempt to circumvent finality---Held, allowing such reopening would set a dangerous precedent and erode confidence in the legal system; finality could not be disturbed by subordinate fora after lapse of decades. (c) Constitutional jurisdiction ----Delay and laches in writ proceedings---Effect where impugned action is void ab initio---Writ petitions filed by private respondents after lapse of eight to ten years against order dated 07.02.2011---Plea of laches raised by petitioner---Held, even if delay existed, High Court could still entertain petitions on merits where impugned order was void ab initio for want of jurisdiction and for violating Art.189---No limitation ran against void order; consequently, laches did not bar judicial correction of an order passed without lawful authority. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ----S.12(2)---Setting aside orders obtained through misrepresentation/fraud---Withdrawal of writ petition on compromise---Multiple petitioners---Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn on counsel’s statement of out-of-court compromise---Applicants asserted unauthorized withdrawal without consent of all petitioners; some petitioners never compromised and one petitioner had died prior to purported settlement---Held, counsel’s withdrawal on compromise without authority and without consent of all concerned constituted misrepresentation; High Court rightly entertained and accepted applications under S.12(2) to set aside orders dismissing writ as withdrawn on compromise. (e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) and Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 ----O.III, R.4, CPC---S.22(3), Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act---Wakalatnama---Scope of counsel’s authority---Wakalatnama recognized as instrument authorizing advocate to appear/act for party---Held, such authority did not, by itself, confer power to compromise or settle dispute without express consent of client; counsel could enter compromise only where specifically empowered or instructed; unilateral compromise/withdrawal without client consent not protected by mere filing of wakalatnama. (f) Appellate practice ----Interference in leave jurisdiction---Findings of fact by High Court---Scope---Federal Constitutional Court (in leave stage) not to reassess factual conclusions unless findings shown to be manifestly against evidence, patently improbable leading to miscarriage of justice, based on misapplication of principles of appreciation of evidence, or physically impossible---Petitioner failed to point out any legal, procedural or jurisdictional flaw in impugned judgment; Division Bench reasoning supported by record; leave not warranted. Disposition: Leave to appeal refused; C.P.L.A. Nos. 962, 963 and 964 of 2023 dismissed. (Order dated 02.12.2025)