2008 PLP 844 (CLC)
GUL BEGUM — Applicant Versus MUHAMMAD RIAZ and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 844 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GUL BEGUM — Applicant Versus MUHAMMAD RIAZ and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 844 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 844 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 844 (CLC) (GUL BEGUM — Applicant Versus MUHAMMAD RIAZ and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Manzoor Hussain for Respondent No.1.
- Sardar M. Arif Khan for Respondent No.3.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 12(2)
Application against allegation of fraud
Applicants who claimed to be successors of vendees of land of respondent, had alleged that a fraud had been played upon them-Land had been purchased during the pendency of revision and neither any allegation of collusion nor same was coming forth on the record as revision was contested and decided after hearing all concerned
No ground was made out within the meaning of S.12(2) C.P.C. for interference with judgment and decree
No defect on merits had also been pointed out--Application was accordingly dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.
The applicants to be the successors of Manzoor Ahmad and Muhammad Ahmad, vendees of Muhammad Riaz respondent No.1 in Civil Revision No.1454 of 1998 have filed this application for setting aside of the judgment, dated 16-6-2005 of this Court in the said civil revision whereby it was allowed. In the application, it has been stated that the said persons purchased the land from Muhammad Riaz in the year 1981 and that a fraud has been played upon them inasmuch as they were neither impleaded in the civil suit filed by the opposite party which was decided on 30-6-1994 and dismissed. The first appeal, which was dismissed on 24-3-1998 and then this civil revision, which was allowed on 16-6-2005.
2. The applicants have themselves appended the copy of a sale-deed whereby the said persons had purchased the land from said Muhammad Riaz. It was executed on 17-4-1999 and registered on 19-4-1999 i.e. when the civil revision had been admitted to hearing and was pending. Learned counsel for the applicants was confronted accordingly. He has stated that it is a typographical error in the application. I have examined the application with his assistance and find that the entire application proceeds with the said repeated assertion that they were not impleaded when they had purchased the land before the filing of the suit.
3. The land having been purchased during the pendency of the civil revision and there is neither any allegation of collusion nor is the same coming forth on the record as the civil revision was contested and decided after hearing all concerned, no ground stands made out within the meaning of section 12(2), C.P.C. for interference with the said judgment and decree. No defect on merits has also been pointed out. The C.M. accordingly is dismissed. H.B.T./G-5/L Application dismissed.