Summary: (a) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)—Art. 212(3) of the Constitution—Federal Service Tribunal—Jurisdiction—Finality of Tribunal's judgment—Application under S. 12(2), C.P.C.—Maintainability—Doctrine of merger—EffectJudgment of Federal Service Tribunal (FST), directing upgradation of Signal Maintainers (SMRs) in Multan Division to BS-10 to maintain parity with their counterparts in Rawalpindi Division, attained finality after dismissal of civil petitions by Supreme Court. Petitioners subsequently filed an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C., challenging implementation of the FST judgment on alleged grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. Supreme Court held that once the FST’s judgment was affirmed by the apex Court, it merged therein and could not be reopened through an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. Furthermore, the application failed to plead specific instances of fraud or misrepresentation, as required under law—Application rightly dismissed—Petition dismissed and leave refused.Cited Cases:• Trading Corporation of Pakistan v. Devan Sugar Mills Ltd. PLD 2018 SC 828• Government of Pakistan v. Qazalbash Waqf 1993 SCMR 1697(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----S. 12(2)—Fraud, misrepresentation, or want of jurisdiction—Pleading requirements—Application without specific averments—Dismissal justifiedApplication under S. 12(2), C.P.C., filed by Pakistan Railways failed to disclose any precise facts or material particulars to demonstrate fraud or misrepresentation in securing the judgment by the respondent. Supreme Court held that bare allegations, generalised claims, or sweeping assertions are insufficient under S. 12(2), which mandates clear, detailed, and specific pleading of the alleged fraud, deception, or jurisdictional defect. Petitioners’ contentions did not challenge the FST’s original judgment, but sought to obstruct its implementation, rendering the application misconceived. Dismissal of the petition warranted.(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----O.VII, R.11—Scope—Non-applicability to post-judgment implementation proceedings—Misuse of CPC to delay execution—CondemnedPetitioners also invoked O.VII, R.11, C.P.C., seeking dismissal of the implementation petition. Supreme Court observed that once a judgment is passed and affirmed, the plaint ceases to be relevant. There was no pending suit at that stage to which O.VII, R.11 could apply. The Court condemned the misuse of procedural provisions of CPC to harass civil servants or delay enforcement of lawful judgments. Legal provisions must not be weaponized to prolong litigation through frivolous or irrelevant applications—No justification found for interference.(d) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)—Nature of jurisdiction—Exclusive forum—Limited applicability of CPC—Purpose of swift adjudication—Undermining legislative intentFederal Service Tribunal is a special forum exercising exclusive appellate jurisdiction in service matters. Supreme Court cautioned against full-scale application of CPC within FST proceedings, as it would defeat the very purpose of creating a specialized, expeditious forum. Delays caused by unnecessary procedural tactics compromise the effectiveness of the Tribunal. Recourse against adverse decisions lies in filing a review before the FST or an appeal before the Supreme Court under Article 212 of the Constitution—No space for repeated litigation on finalised matters.

Summary: (a) Withdrawal of Suit by an Allegedly Mentally Incompetent Plaintiff ----Effect of withdrawal of suit---Judicial duty to assess mental competency before recording statements. The petitioners challenged a gift mutation executed by their father, alleging fraud and misrepresentation by their brothers. Their father had previously filed a suit for cancellation of the same mutation but withdrew it on 29.05.2021. The court noted that the father passed away on the same day, raising serious concerns about his mental and physical condition at the time of withdrawal. The court held that where a party’s mental fitness is disputed, the trial court is obligated to verify the party’s soundness before recording statements. Failure to do so may render the proceedings void ab initio. Cited Case: Jeewan Shah v. Muhammad Shah (PLD 2006 SC 202) (b) Effect of Withdrawal of Suit on a Subsequent Challenge by Legal Heirs ----Whether legal heirs are barred from challenging transactions withdrawn by the predecessor. The respondents argued that the petitioners’ suit was barred as their father had withdrawn a prior suit challenging the same mutation. The court held that if the withdrawal was obtained under suspicious circumstances, including potential coercion or mental incompetency, the legal heirs were not precluded from challenging the transaction. A withdrawal obtained without free consent and proper judicial oversight does not operate as res judicata against legal heirs. (c) Fraud and Misrepresentation in Property Transfers Among Family Members ----Inheritance rights of female heirs---Burden of proof in fraud allegations. The petitioners, as daughters, claimed that their brothers fraudulently deprived them of their rightful inheritance. The court emphasized that in cases of alleged fraud within the family, especially concerning women’s inheritance rights, courts should be reluctant to dismiss claims on technical grounds. Instead, such matters should be adjudicated on merits, ensuring that claims of misrepresentation and coercion are properly addressed. Cited Cases: Syed Sadaqat Sultan v. Bahadar (2007 YLR 2905) (d) Conversion of Suit into an Application Under Section 12(2), C.P.C. ----Flexibility in procedural law to prevent injustice. The petitioners sought to challenge the withdrawal of the prior suit under Section 12(2), C.P.C., alleging fraud. The court reaffirmed the principle that procedural laws should not be used as a tool to defeat substantive justice. Courts have the discretion to treat a plaint as an application under Section 12(2), C.P.C., or vice versa, when justice so demands, particularly when fraud and misrepresentation are alleged. Cited Cases: Noor-ul-Amin v. Muhammad Hashim (1992 SCMR 1744) (e) Remand for Reassessment of Suit’s Maintainability ----Trial court’s duty to re-examine maintainability considering the plaintiff’s condition. The court set aside the revisional order dismissing the suit and remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh determination of the suit’s maintainability. The trial court was directed to assess whether the withdrawal of the earlier suit was validly obtained, taking into account the father’s physical and mental health at the time. Disposition: Petition allowed, revisional order set aside, and case remanded for reconsideration of suit’s maintainability.

Summary: Background: The case involves a dispute over an ex-parte judgment obtained by Respondents No. 2 and 3, who had filed a suit seeking a declaration regarding inherited property. The suit was decreed ex-parte after the defendants failed to appear. The petitioner later filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside the ex-parte judgment, alleging that her deceased mother was fraudulently included as a defendant in the suit and that some death certificates presented were bogus. The trial court initially admitted certain documents as evidence through a statement made by the petitioner's advocate, which were later de-exhibited upon the respondents' application. The petitioner challenged this de-exhibition in the High Court. ----Issues: 1- Whether the documents admitted into evidence through the petitioner's advocate's statement could be de-exhibited. 2- Whether the trial and revisional courts properly applied judicial mind and adhered to legal principles when making their orders regarding the exhibition and de-exhibition of documents. 3-Whether the petitioner was prejudiced by the de-exhibition of documents that were crucial to her application under Section 12(2) of the Code. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Lahore High Court set aside the orders of the trial and revisional courts that had first allowed and then de-exhibited the documents. The court held that both courts had acted in a mechanical manner, failing to properly apply judicial principles. It was emphasized that objections to the admissibility of documents should be raised at the time they are tendered, and once marked as exhibits, the documents should not be de-exhibited unless absolutely necessary. The court further noted that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to cure any defects in the admission of evidence. The case was remanded with instructions to allow the petitioner to produce further evidence or re-examine witnesses, while giving the respondents an opportunity to cross-examine. ----Citations/Precedents: Malik Riazullah vs. Mst. Dilnasheen and Others (2018 CLC 1569) Muhammad Arif and Others vs. Aziz-ur-Rehman and Others (2023 CLC 713) Mst. Akhtar Sultana vs. Major Retd. Muzaffar Khan Malik through his legal heirs and Others (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 715) Rustam and Others vs. Jehangir (Deceased) through LRs. (2023 SCMR 730) Manzoor Hussain (deceased) through L.Rs. vs. Misri Khan (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 749) Gopal Das and another vs. Sri Thakurji and Others (A.I.R (30) 1943 Privy Council 83) Gulzar Hussain vs. Abdur Rehman and another (1985 SCMR 301) Mst. Akhtar Sultana vs. Major Retd. Muzaffar Khan Malik through his legal heirs and Others (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 715) N.M.S. Sadasivier Krishnier and Others vs. T.S. Meenakshi Iyer and Others (A.I.R. 1933 Madras 781) Jodhpur Gums & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors (AIR 1999 Rajasthan 38)

Summary: ----First Sched., Art. 164---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. IX-- -Setting aside ex-parte decree---Limitation---Once a person appears, participates in proceedings, submits written statement and later on absents himself from proceedings, which results into ex-parte decree, application for setting aside of such ex-parte decree will have to be submitted within a period of thirty days as provided in Art. 164 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Shahid Pervez alias Shahid Hameed v. Muhammad Ahmad Ameen 2006 SCMR 631 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 12(2) & O. IX, R. 13---Dismissal of suit in default---Application for recalling of dismissal order---Dismissal of said application for non-prosecution---Subsequent application under S. 12(2) of C.P.C.---Maintainability---When the remedy under O. IX, R. 13, C.P.C. was availed and the application was dismissed for non-prosecution, the petitioner was required to submit the application for restoration of the application which was dismissed for non-prosecution, but he filed the application and had sought setting aside ex-parte decree through revival of the suit by filing an application under S. l2(2), C.P.C.---Application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. and revival of suit in consonance with sub-clause (2) of S. 12 is for an aggrieved person but on the ground of fraud, mis-representation and want of jurisdiction---Application under S. l2(2), C.P.C was not a substitute for the application for setting aside decree under O. IX, R. 13, C.P.C., rather grounds of the application under S. 12(2) C.P.C., were different to the application, which could be seen and adjudged within the four corners provided by the legislature---No doubt, suit of the respondent/plaintiff had been decreed against the petitioner ex-parte but due to lethargic attitude of the petitioner/defendant---Record also reflected that the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of a specific amount was also dismissed for non-prosecution---No doubt, in appropriate cases, application filed under S. l2(2), C.P.C., required submission of written reply, framing of issues and recording of evidence but not in each case, as it depended upon facts and circumstances of each case---Revision was dismissed with costs accordingly. Amina Bibi through General Attorney v. Nasrullah and others 2000 SCMR 296; Mrs. Anis Haider v. S. Amir Haider and others 2008 SCMR 236 and Ghulam Muhammad v. Ahmed Khan 1993 SCMR 662 ref. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 12(2)---Dismissal of suit in default---Application for recalling of the dismissal order---Dismissal of said application for non-prosecution- --Subsequent application under S. 12(2) of C.P.C.---Application under S. 12(2) of C.P.C was concurrently rejected---Pendency of revision petition before the High Court for a long time due to conduct of revision petitioner---Effect---Costs, imposition of---High Court observed that frivolous litigations are initiated by parties without any locus standi---Present case was one of the classic examples where present application remained pending before this (High) Court for the last six years where on each date, the petitioner requested adjournment---On one hand, frivolous litigation may cause and increase the backlog and on the other hand, it creates hurdle in smooth administration of justice and for such like matters it was held time again by the Superior Courts that incompetent petition requires its burial from its inception---Petitioner had availed remedy under O. IX, R. 13 and lastly, he filed application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. which was not maintainable---Hence, it was rightly dismissed by the lower Court---In wake of the conduct of the petitioner for the last six years, costs of Rs. 50 000/- was imposed on him, to be recovered by the Executing Court along with decreetal amount---Revision was dismissed with costs accordingly. Nemo for Petitioner Ms. Neelam A. Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 1st August, 2024.

Summary: Background: In this case, the petitioners challenged the order of the Additional District Judge-III, Nowshera, dated 03.03.2018, which set aside a previous judgment from 15.05.2012 and dismissed the reference/objection of the petitioners' predecessor. The dispute revolves around a property transaction involving a sale deed executed by a general attorney after the death of the principal, raising issues of fraud and misrepresentation. ----Issues: 1- Whether the general attorney had the authority to execute the sale deed after the death of the principal. 2- Whether the previous judgment and decree were obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. 3- Whether the reference/objection filed by the petitioners' predecessor was valid. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the application under Section 12(2) C.P.C. was properly accepted, setting aside the previous judgment and decree. However, the dismissal of the reference was deemed unjustified. The court noted that the matter required further evidence to resolve the disputed facts regarding the authority of the general attorney and the validity of the sale deed. Consequently, the petition was partially allowed, and the reference was reinstated for further proceedings, with the respondent to be impleaded as a party. ----Citations/Precedents: Amiry Bibi through General Attorney vs. Nasrullah and others (2000 SCMR 296) Ms. Sabiran Bibi and others (2008 SCMR 226) Ghulam Muhammad vs. Khan (2006 SCMR 531) Ms. Shahana Ali vs. Syed Muhammad Haris Jaffari and others (2007 SCMR 1492) Muhammad Umar and others vs. Hamid Hamza and others (2017 CLC 699) Haji Farman Ullah vs. Latif-ur-Rehman (2015 SCMR 1708) North-West Frontier Province Government through Collector, Abbottabad and another vs. Abdul Ghafoor Khan through legal heirs and others (PLD 1993 SC 418) ----Quote: Section 12(2) CPC. Acceptance of application & revival of suit. General principle is that on the acceptance of application filed u/s 12(2) CPC, the suit is revived for providing the parties an opportunity to prove their respective contention. The object and the philosophy of insertion of sub section 2 to section 12 of CPC, 1908 on one hand is to provide a remedy to the aggrieved party to redress his grievance and on the other hand to bring the parties on a position to prove their respective pleas against each other, on acceptance of application filed u/s 12(2) CPC. Only in exceptional circumstances i.e. when after acceptance of application it it appear that the court wherein the suit was filed by the plaintiff lacks the jurisdiction in an exceptional cases that the suit is barred by law or by limitation provided in the statute under which the suit was filed (as in preemption cases) may order the dismissal of suit or return of plaint under order VII rules 10 CPC, otherwise in all the cases, the suit shall revie automatically.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Arts. 199, 184(3), 12(2) C.P.C. Allotment of State Land in Mouza Murree Brewery—Validity—Fraudulent claims—Misrepresentation—Jurisdiction of Court—Void Judgment—Effect. The dispute pertained to the allotment of land in Revenue Estate of Mouza Murree Brewery, originally owned by Murree Brewery Company Limited and later sold to M/S Kirpa Ram Brothers, who migrated to India during the partition. The suit land was included within the municipal limits of Murree via Notification dated 24.11.1956, converting it from rural to urban land. Under the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, 1956, urban land was ineligible for allotment to displaced persons. The private respondents, successors of Nafisa (Nafees) Banu and Khan Abdul Shafi Khan Barqi, fraudulently claimed allotment of the said land based on forged RL-II documents. Despite repeated litigation, including Settlement Revision Petitions and appeals, the claimants failed to establish verified claims under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The record produced by the Deputy Commissioner and investigative committees revealed that RL-II records were non-existent, and the documents presented by the private respondents were fake. The consolidated judgment dated 03.10.2000, which allowed the claims of private respondents, was declared void ab initio, per incuriam, and coram non judice, as it was passed without jurisdiction and on the basis of fraudulent documents. A void judgment has no legal effect and need not be formally set aside. The competent authorities are under no obligation to implement such orders. ----Cited Cases: Province of Punjab through Secretary Settlement and Rehabilitation Department, Lahore v. Akhtar Ali Khan and others (2007 SCMR 459) Muhammad Swaleh and another v. Messrs United Grain and Fodder Agencies (PLD 1964 SC 97) Province of Punjab through Secretary, Health Department v. Dr. S. Muhammad Zafar Bukhari (PLD 1997 SC 351) Yousaf Ali v. Muhammad Aslam Zia and others (PLD 1958 SC 104) ----Disposition: The application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was allowed. The judgment dated 21.10.2020, passed in I.C.A No.09 of 2020, was set aside. The Director General Anti-Corruption Establishment Punjab was directed to initiate proceedings against the delinquent officials and private respondents involved in the fraudulent land allotment.

Summary: Background: The case involves a disputed allotment of land in the Revenue Estate of Mouza Murree Brewery, initially owned by a brewery company and later converted into a hotel. The estate was damaged during the partition in 1947. In 1956, the estate was incorporated within the limits of Municipal Committee, Murree. In 1960, a proposal was made to allot parts of the estate to certain individuals. However, the Deputy Commissioner directed against any allotment, which was challenged and initially overturned. This led to multiple legal proceedings and a consolidated judgment by the Lahore High Court in 2000, favoring the respondents. Subsequent efforts to implement the judgment were dismissed, leading to the current application under Section 12 (2) CPC. ----Issues: 1- Whether the allotment of urban land to the respondents under the 1956 Scheme was legal. 2- Whether the consolidated judgment of 2000, obtained through allegedly fabricated documents, was valid. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the suit land, being urban land, was not eligible for allotment under the 1956 Scheme, which only allowed for the allotment of rural land. The court found that the respondents failed to substantiate their claims with authentic documents and had misled the court using fabricated evidence. The consolidated judgment of 2000 was declared void and per incuriam due to fraud and misrepresentation by the respondents. The court set aside the judgment dated 21.10.2020 in ICA No.09 of 2020 and dismissed the ICA. The Director General Anti-Corruption Establishment Punjab was directed to investigate and take legal action against the involved officials and respondents. ----Citations/Precedents: "MUHAMMAD SWALEH AND ANOTHER V. MESSRS UNITED GRAIN & FODDER AGENCIES" (PLD 1964 SC 97) "PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary, Health Department V. Dr.S.MUHAMMAD ZAFAR BUKHARI" (PLD 1997 SC 351) "PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary Settlement and Rehabilitation Department, Lahore V. AKHTAR ALI KHAN and others" (2007 SCMR 459) "Yousaf Ali V. Muhammad Aslam Zia and 2 others" (PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 104) "Sheikh Muhammad Sadiq Vs. Elahi Bakhsh and 2 others" (2006 SCMR 12) "Mst. AKHTAR SULTANA versus Major Retd. MUZAFFAR KHAN MALIK through his legal heirs and others" (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 715) "NATIONAL COMMAND AUTHORITY through D.G. SPD, Rawalpindi and others versus ZAHOOR AZAM and others" (2024 CLC 1) ----Quote: A void judgment even a court decision has no legal power; considered to be never happened; any one affected can say it a void judgment even at belated stage; need not be formally set aside; question of limitation does not arise at all; Order/judgment being without jurisdiction when nullity does not require to be set-aside in appeal; Revenue Functionaries are also not bound to implement such order/judgment which is void or per incuriam, coram non judice and passed without jurisdiction or obtained on the basis of forged, false, fake fictitious and fabricated documents; Application u/s 12 (2) of CPC can be decided without framing of issues and recording of evidence which is not obligatory for the Court when it is proved that impugned judgment and Order for implementation of the void judgment was passed and obtained against fake and bogus RL-II as well as on false claim having no record of RL-II pertaining to Mouza Murree Brewery in Revenue Record; While allowing application u/s 12 (2) of CPC (C.M.No.1160 of 2022) not only Impugned judgment is set-aside but there is also no need to hear I.C.A.No.09 of 2020 on merits against bogus RL-II which too is dismissed.

Summary: Matrimonial dispute, recall of khula decree---Interference under Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908---Petition challenging the recall of khula decree on grounds of misrepresentation---Petitioner, Fozia Mazhar, contested the reinstatement of marriage decree originally dissolved on grounds of khula, which was recalled on a purported joint application, later claimed to be misrepresented---Family Court initially granted dissolution based on khula with dower return, subsequently reversed on alleged joint application, despite lack of respondent?s signature or proper representation---High Courts upheld the decision, confirming no misrepresentation in the initial decree recall---Evidence from attorney and witnesses of the respondent supported claims of no compromise or consent for the joint application, leading to restoration of original khula decree---Supreme Court found no grounds to interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts, thereby dismissing the appeal and upholding the original dissolution of marriage. Key judicial precedents cited included Muhammad Arshad Anjum v. Mst. Khurshid Begum and others (2021 SCMR 1145), and Allah Dad v. Mukhtar and another (1992 SCMR 1273)---Petition dismissed, confirming no misrepresentation in recalling of khula decree.-----Issues:Whether Section 12(2) of C.P.C. can be invoked to challenge the judgment and decree passed by a Family Court under the Family Courts Act, 1964?Whether the High Court in the exercise of its constitutional writ jurisdiction rightly declined to not interfere in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below?Whether the recall of the decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of khula was in violation of Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, read with Section 21 of the Family Courts Act, 1964?----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the decisions of the lower courts. It ruled that:Section 12(2) of C.P.C. is applicable in proceedings before Family Courts as per established jurisprudence allowing the general principles of C.P.C. to be applied.The High Court properly exercised its jurisdiction by not interfering with the concurrent factual findings of the lower courts, as such findings were based on substantial evidence indicating misrepresentation in the recall application.Addressing the recall of the decree under Section 7 of the Ordinance, in conjunction with Section 21 of the Act, was deemed unnecessary as the case was decided on the misrepresentation found in the recall application, making further discussion academic.-----Citations/Precedents:Syed Ali Nawaz Gardezi v. Lt.-Col. Muhammad Yusuf (PLD 1963 SC 51)Mst. Farida Parwin v. Qadeeruddin Ahmad Siddiqi (PLD 1971 Karachi 118)Mst. Rehmat Bibi v. Mst. Sharifan Bibi (1988 SCMR 1812)Muhammad Arshad Anjum v. Mst. Khurshid Begum (2021 SCMR 1145)Allah Dad v. Mukhtar (1992 SCMR 1273)Allah Rakha v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2000 Federal Shariat Court 1)Board of Governors, Area Study Centre for Africa and North America, Quaid-e-Azam University v. Ms. Farah Zahra (PLD 2005 Supreme Court 153)Barkhurdar v. Muhammad Razzaq (PLD 1989 Supreme Court 749)Sayed Abbas Taqi Mehdi v. Mst. Sayeda Sabahat Batool (PLJ 2010 SC 891)Muhammad Tabish Naeem Khan v. Additional District Judge, Lahore (2014 SCMR 1365)Shajar Islam v. Muhammad Siddique (PLD 2007 SC 45)Hamad Hassan v. Isma Bukhari (2023 SCMR 1434)Dobbs v. Jackson Women?s Health Org. (597 U.S. 215, 348)

Summary: Background:Mst. Zubaida Bibi, the petitioner, was involved in a protracted legal battle concerning the specific performance of a property agreement dated 31.10.1998 against respondent No. 2. The initial suits and subsequent appeals up to the Supreme Court were decided in favor of Mst. Zubaida Bibi, affirming her rights to the property and culminating in the registration of the sale deed on 14.12.2017. Despite these decisions, respondent No. 3 (the son-in-law of respondent No. 2) initiated multiple legal challenges, including a suit for specific performance based on another agreement dated 02.08.1998, applications under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and objections to the execution of the decree in favor of Mst. Zubaida Bibi.---Issues:Whether respondent No. 3's repeated legal challenges, including applications under section 12(2) CPC and objections to execution petitions, were justified and lawful given the prior conclusive judgments.The legality and propriety of respondent No. 3?s actions in light of non-disclosure and alleged concealment of critical facts in his filings, particularly the non-disclosure of related Supreme Court dismissals and ongoing litigation against respondent No. 2.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Lahore High Court, presided over by Judge Shahid Bilal Hassan, found that respondent No. 3 failed to come before the court with clean hands, having concealed pivotal information in his filings that could have influenced judicial outcomes. The court observed that the respondent's conduct involved misrepresentation and was aimed at obstructing the petitioner?s execution of her decreed rights. As a result, the High Court allowed the constitutional petition, set aside the judgment dated 28.11.2019 by the Addl. District Judge which had favored respondent No. 3, and restored the trial court?s order dated 29.05.2018 dismissing respondent No. 3?s application on merits. The decision emphasized the doctrine of judicial merger, where the highest court's ruling in a matter renders it the final authority for related applications concerning jurisdictional challenges, misrepresentation, or fraud.----Citations/Precedents:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, specifically section 12(2), which concerns the court?s powers when it finds it lacks jurisdiction.Supreme Court ruling in Sahibzadi Mehar-un-Nisa and another v. Mst. Ghulam Sugran and another (PLD 2016 SC 358): This precedent was critical in determining that applications under section 12(2) CPC, post a Supreme Court decision affirming a lower court?s ruling, must be filed before the Supreme Court itself.

Summary: '' i). Distinction between a suit for cancellation and suit for declaration. ii). Applicability of Articles 91 and 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1908") iii). Scope and import of Section 202 of the Contract Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1872"). iv). Agreement to sell (Exhibit-P1) which was produced in the statement of learned counsel for the "appellant" is not permissible at all.'' Background:The case involves Abdul Ghafoor (appellant) against Babar Sultan Jadoon (respondent) and three other respondents in a legal dispute concerning property transactions that stem from a power of attorney and subsequent sales agreements. Abdul Ghafoor, through a general power of attorney, authorized Babar Sultan Jadoon, who subsequently executed sale deeds of the said property in favor of his brothers (respondents No.2 & 3). Ghafoor contested these deeds and sought their cancellation, claiming misrepresentation and fraud, leading to the initial suit's dismissal by a Civil Judge, prompting the appeal to the Lahore High Court.----Issues:Validity of the sale deeds and general power of attorney based on claims of fraud and misrepresentation.Whether the plaintiff (Ghafoor) was entitled to various compensations and recoveries as outlined in his suit.Applicability of statutes from the Limitation Act concerning the timing of the suit.The legitimacy of Ghafoor's claims under specific articles of the Contract Act regarding the irrevocability of the power of attorney.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's judgment. It was determined that:The power of attorney was legitimately executed and became irrevocable because it was coupled with an interest, confirmed by payment and agreements related to the property.The suit filed by Ghafoor was time-barred under the applicable statutes from the Limitation Act.There was overwhelming evidence supporting the respondents' execution of the sale agreements as per the authorized power of attorney.Claims of fraud and misrepresentation brought by Ghafoor were not substantiated adequately, thus affirming the legal standing of the sale deeds.----Citations/Precedents:Mst. Izzat vs. Allah Ditta (PLD 1981 Supreme Court 165)Fida Muhammad vs. Pir Muhammad Khan (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs and Others (PLD 1985 Supreme Court 341)Muhammad Ajaib vs. Mughal Hussain and 2 others (2004 YLR 690)Media Max (Pvt) Ltd. through Chief Executive vs. Army Communication Pvt. Ltd. through Chief Executive and another (PLD 2013 Sindh 555)Dr. Muhammad Javaid Shafi vs. Syed Rashid Arshad and others (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 212)Imam Din and 4 others vs. Bashir Ahmed and 10 others (PLD 2005 Supreme Court 418)S.K. Shah through LRs vs. Jamaluddin and others (2017 SCMR 626)Muhammad Aslam vs. Mst. Ferozi and others (PLD 2001 Supreme Court 213)Manzoor Hussain (deceased) through L.Rs. vs. Misri Khan (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 749)