Summary: Background:The legal conflict stems from a suit filed by Muhammad Aslam (Respondent No.3) for possession through pre-emption against Mst. Rehmat Bibi, which was decreed based on a purported compromise. The heirs of Mst. Rehmat Bibi contested this decree, asserting that it was invalid as Mst. Rehmat Bibi had already passed away on May 20, 2000, making the compromise and subsequent decree (dated May 25, 2000) legally untenable.----Issues:The legitimacy of the decree given the claim that Mst. Rehmat Bibi had died before the suit was initiated.The reliability and authenticity of the documentary and oral evidence regarding the date of Mst. Rehmat Bibi's death.The procedural adequacy of the lower courts in handling the evidence and exercising their jurisdiction.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Lahore High Court found that both lower courts failed to properly assess the authenticity of the death certificate and other documentary evidence. The Court criticized both parties for not presenting the full truth and the lower courts for not exercising their jurisdiction effectively to uncover the truth. The judgment stressed the importance of documentary evidence over oral testimony and highlighted the procedural lapses in relying on unverified documents and witnesses with conflicts of interest. Consequently, the petition was accepted, the decisions of the lower courts were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for fresh decision-making, with the directive to consider all relevant evidence and witnesses to achieve justice.----Citations/Precedents:Muhammad Younas and another v. Ghazanfar Abbas and 12 others (2017 YLR 2229): Highlighted the importance of properly proving the contents of a document through the testimony of the individual who signed it.Commissioner of Income-Tax, Companies Zone-II, Karachi v. Messrs Sindh Engineering (Pvt.) Limited, Karachi (2002 SCMR 527): Discussed the implications of a tribunal's failure to exercise its jurisdiction.Mst. Saadia v. Mst. Gul Bibi (2016 SCMR 662): Warned against the reliance on interested witnesses without corroboration from documentary evidence.Tassaduq Hussain Shah and others v. Allah Ditta Shah and others (2023 SCMR 1635): Affirmed that documentary evidence has precedence over oral testimony.Mst. Zarsheda v. Nobat Khan (PLD 2022 SC 21): Addressed the adverse inference drawn from non-production of evidence.Ch. Muneer Hussain v. Mst. Wazeeran Mai alias Mst. Wazir Mai (PLD 2005 SC 658): Emphasized the need for independent advice for females executing documents.Mst. Safia Begum v. Muhammad Ajmal (2007 YLR 3030): Discussed the proof requirements for documents and the credibility of advocate's statements in the absence of corroboration.

Summary: (Application under Section 12(2) C.P.C)(a) The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?(Act No.V of 1908)?S.12(2) and S.115? Suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the respondent No.4/decree holder concurrently decreed in his favour against defendants therein, including Muhammad Azeem, real brother of the petitioners?During execution proceedings the executing Court directed possession of only 1 marla and 2/6 sarsai, which order was set aside by appellate Court directing delivery of possession of decreed area of 8 marlas?During hearing of the revision petition, a consensus developed, whereby the learned counsel for the parties agreed that they will have no objection if the deficiency is made good from the area of Ghulam Yasin and Muhammad Ismail and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the revision petition was accepted and the matter was sent to the learned executing Court with the direction to make good the deficiency out of the area comprising the houses of Ghulam Yasin and Muhammad Ismail, petitioners herein. The contention of petitioners that order dated 19.9.2022 was procured by playing fraud is without force.----(b) The petitioners were delivered possession by Muhammad Azeem. At the most, if the petitioners had purchased the property, already a subject matter of the decree, then petitioners were defrauded by Muhammad Azeem, their brother.(c) Transfer of Property Act, 1882?S.52?Transfer of the suit property during pendency of suit was also hit by the doctrine of lis-pendence.----(Revision petition was dismissed in the circumstances).

Summary: Background: The appellant filed an appeal under Section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.), challenging a judgment and decree by the Additional District Judge Kotli, which favored the respondents in a suit for specific performance. The appellant claimed that the judgment was obtained through fraud, arguing that the entitlement certificate issued for the land transfer was invalid without partition. The trial court dismissed the appellant's application, leading to this appeal. -----Issues: 1- Whether the application under Section 12(2), C.P.C., alleging fraud and misrepresentation, was correctly dismissed by the trial court. -----2- Whether an appeal was the proper legal remedy, or if the appellant should have filed a revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The High Court upheld the dismissal, emphasizing that an order under Section 12(2), C.P.C., does not constitute a decree and is therefore not appealable. Instead, a revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C., is the correct procedure for challenging such orders. The court noted that it could not convert the appeal into a revision due to the five-year delay. Additionally, the court found no evidence of fraud, forgery, or misrepresentation in the entitlement certificate or the judgment. -----Citations/Precedents: Section 12(2), C.P.C. – Provides grounds for setting aside judgments obtained by fraud, but orders under this section do not culminate in appealable decrees. Section 115, C.P.C. – Specifies that revision, not appeal, is the appropriate recourse for non-decree orders. 2013 CLC 411 (Peshawar High Court) – Reinforces that orders under Section 12(2) are not appealable.

Summary: Background: The appellant filed a civil appeal against the decision of the Additional District Judge Kotli, which dismissed his application under Section 12(2) CPC for setting aside a judgment and decree dated 18.04.2019. The original suit was filed by respondents 2 to 5 for specific performance against respondent 1, which was decreed in their favor. ----Issues: 1- Whether the order passed under Section 12(2) CPC is appealable. 2- Whether the appellant’s claims of fraud and misrepresentation were substantiated. 3- Whether the appeal should be treated as a revision petition due to the procedural error. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Non-Appealable Order: The court held that an order dismissing an application under Section 12(2) CPC is not a decree and is not appealable under Section 104 or Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC. The correct legal remedy would have been to file a revision petition under Section 115 CPC. The appellant’s failure to make a request to treat the appeal as a revision petition within the prescribed period rendered the appeal not competent. --Lack of Substantiation of Fraud: The appellant alleged that the judgment and decree were obtained through fraud and misrepresentation, as the land was transferred without proper partition. However, the entitlement certificate issued to Mohammad Shakeel indicated that the land was within his shares and subject to partition. The court found that the appellant failed to point out any specific instances of fraud, forgery, or misrepresentation in the judgment and decree. --Procedural Error: The court acknowledged its power to convert and treat an appeal as a revision petition but noted that this power must consider the limitation period. The court was not inclined to exercise this power after a lapse of five years. The order passed under Section 12(2) CPC did not culminate in a decree but remained an order passed on a miscellaneous application, for which only a revision under Section 115 CPC was available. The court concluded that the appeal lacked merit and was not maintainable. It dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs. ----Citations/Precedents: 2013 CLC 411 2015 CLC 752 2004 YLR 1066 1997 MLD 2003 PLD 1990 Lah 425 The judgment was duly signed and the parties or their counsel were directed to be intimated accordingly.

Summary: Facts:Muhammad Shafi (Respondent No.1), now represented by his legal heirs, filed a suit in 1993 for specific performance.The suit was decreed against the petitioners' predecessor and others, a decision upheld in subsequent appeals.The petitioners, successors of Malik Ali Akbar, filed an application under Section 12(2) of the CPC in 2016, alleging fraud and misrepresentation.The High Court dismissed this application along with an application for condonation of delay.The petitioners claimed they were unaware of the litigation until 2013 due to wrong address.----Issues:Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the application under Section 12(2) CPC.Whether the petitioners' lack of knowledge of the proceedings constitutes grounds for reopening the case.----Judgment:The Court observed that the previous litigation had reached finality, with judgments and decrees executed.It found the petitioners' plea of wrong address and lack of knowledge unpersuasive, given the extensive legal history and execution of decrees.The Court reiterated that allegations of fraud or misrepresentation must be substantiated and that mere lack of knowledge isn't sufficient grounds for reopening a case.The Court referenced precedents stating that while investigating fraud allegations, the Court isn't obliged to follow the full procedure of a suit.Consequently, the Court declined leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.Disposition:The Civil Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan.---Significance:This case emphasizes the high threshold for reopening cases based on allegations of fraud or misrepresentation, particularly when previous litigation has reached finality. It highlights the importance of substantiating such allegations and the discretionary power of the Court in handling such matters.

Summary: Background: The petitioners filed a suit for declaration, specific performance, and injunction against the respondents before the learned Civil Judge Class-I, Rawalpindi. Due to the respondents' absence, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 7th February 2020, and the suit was decreed ex-parte on 5th July 2021. The respondents filed an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to annul the decree, which was accepted on 7th July 2023. The petitioners' revision petition against this decision was dismissed on 14th October 2023, leading to the current petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court's decision to proceed ex-parte against the respondents was lawful. 2- Whether the annulment of the ex-parte decree by the trial court and the subsequent dismissal of the revision petition by the Additional District Judge were justified. 3- Whether the petitioners are entitled to relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Ex-parte Proceedings: The trial court proceeded ex-parte against the respondents due to their absence and issued a proclamation in the newspaper without proper efforts for personal service. The trial court did not follow the mandatory provisions of Order V Rules 16, 18, and 19 of the CPC, which require substantial compliance before resorting to substituted service through publication. ---Annulment of Ex-parte Decree: The respondents were residents of England, and proper service procedures, including personal service and postal communication, were not followed. The court found that the substituted service was invalid, as it was not justified by prior efforts to serve the respondents personally. Consequently, the ex-parte proceedings and decree were annulled, and this decision was affirmed by the revisional court. ---Relief under Article 199: The petitioners failed to demonstrate any material irregularity or legal perversity in the decisions of the lower courts. The petitioners' request for writ of certiorari under Article 199(1)(a)(ii) of the Constitution of Pakistan was found to lack merit, as they could not show that the annulled order was without lawful authority or suffered from material illegalities. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, upholding the decisions of the lower courts to annul the ex-parte decree and denying the petitioners' request for relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. ----Citations/Precedents: Mrs. NARGIS LATIF vs Mrs. FEROZ AFAQ AHMED KHAN (2001 SCMR 99) Haji AKBAR and others vs GUL BARAN and 7 others (1996 SCMR 1703) WAPDA vs GHULAM HUSSAIN (2000 CLC 530) Syed SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH vs Messrs FEDERATION OF EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETIES LTD. (2003 CLC 1011) MEHR DIN through Legal Heirs vs AZIZAN and another (1994 SCMR 1110) AMJAD KHAN v. MUHAMMAD IRSHAD (DECEASED) through LRs (2020 SCMR 2155) CHIEF EXECUTIVE MEPCO and others v. MUHAMMAD FAZIL and others (2019 SCMR 919)

Summary: ''It is an oft-repeated principle of law that whenever some miscellaneous application is pending before the Court, it shall decide the same in the first stance before finalizing the lis and passing the final order/judgment. Failure to decide the miscellaneous application before passing the final verdict would render the same nullity in the eye of law. To this effect, guidance from the case of MUHAMMAD UMER vs. MUHAMMAD QASIM and another (1991 SCMR 1232).'' --- This case, Stereo.HCJDA 38, involves a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the validity of an order dated December 9, 2022. The order, issued by the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, affirmed a previous order from May 19, 2022, by the Civil Judge Class-I, Rawalpindi.The background of the case is a suit for declaration filed by respondents, claiming to be legal heirs of Arif Hussain, who passed away on November 9, 2018. The suit resulted in an ex-parte decree on March 19, 2019. The petitioners, upon learning of this, filed an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking annulment of the judgment and decree. They argued that petitioner No.1's name was included in the suit, but she never participated, and all proceedings were conducted by respondent No.1 without authorization.The trial court dismissed both the application under section 12(2) and another application for summoning a witness. The petitioners then filed a revision petition, which was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge.The petitioners contended that the ex-parte decree was obtained through misrepresentation, and the trial court failed to address this issue properly. They argued that the revisional court acted like a post office and did not exercise its jurisdiction.The judgment by Mirza Viqas Rauf allows the petition, setting aside the orders of December 9, 2022, and May 19, 2022. The application under section 12(2) of the CPC is deemed pending before the Senior Civil Judge, who is instructed to decide it afresh within three months from the date of the first appearance of the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Senior Civil Judge on January 10, 2024. No costs are awarded. The decision refers to legal principles emphasizing the need to decide miscellaneous applications before passing final judgments.

Summary: Issue:The central issue was the validity of the impugned order by the District Judge dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 12(2) CPC, considering the allegations of fraud and non-service of notice.Judgment:The Lahore High Court dismissed the civil revision petition. The Court found that evidence contradicted the petitioner's claims of non-participation in the initial proceedings. It was established that the petitioner was actively involved, having submitted a Wakalatnama, written statement, and reply through counsel. Despite claims of non-receipt of appeal notice, the record showed the petitioner was served through due process, including newspaper advertisement, but failed to appear in the appellate court.The Court ruled the petition under Section 12(2) CPC was barred by limitation, referencing Bashir Ahmed through Legal Representative and others v. Muhammad Hussain and others (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 504), which clarifies the three-year limitation period for such applications, commencing from the date of knowledge of the contested decision. The Court also referred to Faizum alias Toor v. Nander Khan and others (2006 SCMR 1931) and Fida Hussain v. Ghulam Sarwar (2002 SCMR 1554) to support its conclusions on limitation and fraud allegations.The Court dismissed the petitioner's fraud allegations due to lack of substantial proof and emphasized the presumption of truth attached to judicial records under Article 129(e) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Court further cited several Supreme Court judgments, including Mst. Musarat Parveen v. Muhammad Yousaf and others (2023 SCMR 1665) and Messrs Pak Suzuki Motors Company Limited through Manager v. Faisal Jameel Butt and another (PLD 2023 S.C. 482), to affirm that questions of limitation are not mere technicalities and require careful consideration.Legal Principles:Section 12(2) CPC: Pertains to challenging court decisions based on fraud or misrepresentation.Limitation Law: Emphasizes the importance of pursuing legal remedies within prescribed time limits.Fraud Allegations: Require significant evidence for inquiry or investigation.Presumption of Judicial Record Authenticity: Upheld unless substantial evidence to the contrary is presented.Conclusion:The Lahore High Court's decision to affirm the District Judge's dismissal of the petitioner's application underlines the critical nature of limitation laws and the necessity for substantial evidence when alleging fraud. The judgment reinforces the judiciary's commitment to maintaining legal certainty and the sanctity of judicial proceedings.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ----S. 12(2)---Consent decree---Challenge on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation---Delay of over four decades---Framing of issues---Bar of limitation---Scope---Respondents challenged a consent decree dated 15.05.1975, passed in Civil Suit No.306/1, through an application under S.12(2), C.P.C., alleging fraud, misrepresentation, and concealment of facts---Learned Revisional Court set aside the dismissal of said application by the Trial Court and remanded the matter for decision on merits after framing of issues and recording of evidence---Held, that the consent decree was passed after compromise between parties duly recorded and acknowledged in court and had attained finality, having never been challenged during the lifetime of the respondents’ predecessors---Once a consent decree is passed by a competent court, it operates as estoppel by judgment unless cogent reasons to the contrary are pleaded and established---Framing of issues is not mandatory in every case under S.12(2), especially where the application is barred by limitation or devoid of specific particulars of fraud---Respondents failed to mention any definite date of knowledge or plead fraud with the necessary specificity---Application filed after more than forty years held to be hopelessly time-barred under Art. 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908---Revisional Court’s interference was based on misreading of law and facts and suffered from material irregularity. (b) Limitation Act, 1908 ----Art. 181---Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. filed after inordinate delay of over forty years without explaining the date of knowledge---Held, barred by time and liable to be dismissed without need for detailed inquiry or framing of issues. Cited Cases: • Sailendra Narayan v. State of Orissa AIR 1956 SC 346 • Warriach Zarai Corporation v. F.M.C. United (Pvt) Ltd. 2006 SCMR 531 • Bashir Ahmad through LRs v. Muhammad Hussain PLD 2019 SC 504 Disposition: Petition allowed. Judgment of Revisional Court dated 02.12.2021 set aside; Trial Court’s dismissal of S.12(2), C.P.C. application restored.

Summary: Facts:The petitioner sought to challenge the High Court of Balochistan's judgment that dismissed her revision petition. The original suit involved a dispute over a plot purchase agreement, which was decreed in favor of the respondents by the trial court. The petitioner's subsequent attempts to challenge this decree, including an application under Section 12(2) CPC and an appeal, were unsuccessful due to procedural issues and limitations.---Procedural History:The trial court's decree in favor of the respondents was upheld through various stages, culminating in the dismissal of the petitioner's civil revision by the High Court due to issues surrounding the application's timeliness and procedural appropriateness.----Issue:Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the petitioner's civil revision, which was grounded in procedural missteps and the application of limitation laws.---Holding:The Supreme Court dismissed the civil petition, affirming the High Court's judgment. The Court found no legal or jurisdictional defects in the High Court's decision, which was based on the petitioner's failure to timely challenge the trial court's decree and procedural misapplications.---Rationale:The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of due diligence in pursuing legal remedies and noted that the petitioner failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. The Court also emphasized that the law of limitation is foundational to the legal system, designed to discourage stale claims and encourage vigilance in seeking redress.---Judgment:The petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was declined. The Court's decision underscored the necessity for parties to adhere to procedural timelines and the principles underpinning the law of limitation. --- ''1) Appeal was barred by time and petitioner failed to explain the delay. (2) The law of limitation requires that a person must approach the Court and take recourse to legal remedies with due diligence within the time provided by the law. (3) The law of Limitation is premeditated to dissuade the claims which have become stale by efflux of time.'