2001 PLP 2817 (YLR)
Mrs. SAIRA BEGUM and others — Applicants Versus MUHAMMAD ATTA-UR-REHMAN MALIK and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2817 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | S. A. Rabbani, J |
| Parties | Mrs. SAIRA BEGUM and others — Applicants Versus MUHAMMAD ATTA-UR-REHMAN MALIK and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2817 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2817 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: S. A. Rabbani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2817 (YLR) (Mrs. SAIRA BEGUM and others — Applicants Versus MUHAMMAD ATTA-UR-REHMAN MALIK and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 13th February, 2001.
- A written statement was filed in the suit on behalf of the present applicants; issues were framed; plaintiff/respondent No. 1 was examined, who produced documents and was cross-examined by Mr. Muhammad Yaseen Azad, Advocate on behalf of the defendants/applicants. No evidence was, however, produced by the defendants. Whatever evidence was placed on record, was considered by the learned Senior Civil Judge for findings on issues and ultimately, the suit was decreed by 1st Senior Civil Judge, Karachi, West, on 20-5-1991.
- On 8-10-1991, an application was filed on behalf of the defendants/present applicants, under section 12(2), Civil Procedure Code alleging that the decree was obtained through misrepresentation and fraud. Their claim was that they were not served with summons in the suit and they had not engaged Mr. Yaseen Azad in that suit. They alleged that their signatures were forged. This claim was contested by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 and after having Advocates of the parties, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application by this order, dated 10-8-1993. Present Revision has been filed against this order.
- In these proceedings the respondent Attaur Rehman Malik could not be served through ordinary mode of service and he chose to remain absent despite publication of notice in a daily newspaper. K.D.A. and K.M.C. were not a party to actual dispute. Advocate for the applicants was present and was heard.
- The allegation was quite serious and it involved an Advocate. The evidence of Mr. Yaseen Azad was extremely important and necessary for resolution of the controversy. The learned Senior Civil Judge decided the issue merely by comparing signatures and without taking any evidence. He ignored the plea for the reason that no complaint was made to the Bar Council against the Advocate Mr. Yaseen Azad. Why it was not done, could also be explained in the evidence.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 12(2)
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-- S.42--Suit for declaration in respect of title and possession was decreed by Trial Court-- Such judgment and decree were challenged by defendants in this application under S.12(2), C.P.C. alleging that same were obtained by fraud and misrepresentation
Trial Court dismissed application without framing issue for determination of allegations and allowing the parties to produce evidence on said issue
Trial , Court by not conducting a thorough enquiry into the allegation by taking evidence of the parties had acted with material irregularity
High Court set aside order of the Trial Court and remanded case to decide application filed under S.12 (2), C. P. C. after framing issue and allowing the parties to produce evidence. Masood Shahryar for Applicants.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 13th February, 2001. The applicants had a dispute in respect of a Plot. No. 576, Sector 11-E, Orangi Town, Karachi, with respondent Muhammad Attaur Rehman Malik. The latter filed Civil Suit No. 2168 of 1985, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Karachi West, against the present applicants, joining K.M.C. and K.D.A. also as defendant. The prayer included declaration in respect of title and possession. A written statement was filed in the suit on behalf of the present applicants; issues were framed; plaintiff/respondent No. 1 was examined, who produced documents and was cross-examined by Mr. Muhammad Yaseen Azad, Advocate on behalf of the defendants/applicants. No evidence was, however, produced by the defendants. Whatever evidence was placed on record, was considered by the learned Senior Civil Judge for findings on issues and ultimately, the suit was decreed by 1st Senior Civil Judge, Karachi, West, on 20-5-1991. On 8-10-1991, an application was filed on behalf of the defendants/present applicants, under section 12(2), Civil Procedure Code alleging that the decree was obtained through misrepresentation and fraud. Their claim was that they were not served with summons in the suit and they had not engaged Mr. Yaseen Azad in that suit. They alleged that their signatures were forged. This claim was contested by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 and after having Advocates of the parties, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application by this order, dated 10-8-1993. Present Revision has been filed against this order. In these proceedings the respondent Attaur Rehman Malik could not be served through ordinary mode of service and he chose to remain absent despite publication of notice in a daily newspaper. K.D.A. and K.M.C. were not a party to actual dispute. Advocate for the applicants was present and was heard. Mr. Masood Shehryar, learned counsel for the applicants contended that the Civil Court failed to exercise jurisdiction properly by disposing of the matter without framing an issue for determination of the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation and allowing the parties to produce evidence on the issue. He submitted that the applicants had not engaged Mr. Yaseen Azad in that suit and the written statement filed by him was' not made and signed by the applicants. The allegation was quite serious and it involved an Advocate. The evidence of Mr. Yaseen Azad was extremely important and necessary for resolution of the controversy. The learned Senior Civil Judge decided the issue merely by comparing signatures and without taking any evidence. He ignored the plea for the reason that no complaint was made to the Bar Council against the Advocate Mr. Yaseen Azad. Why it was not done, could also be explained in the evidence. By not conducting a thorough enquiry into the allegations by taking evidence of the parties, the Civil Court has acted with material irregularity. In the interest of justice, the revision application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the 1st Senior Civil Judge, Karachi, West to decide the application under section 12(2), Civil Procedure Code after framing the issue and allowing the parties to produce evidence. No order as to costs in the circumstances. H.B.T./S-155/K Revision allowed/Order accordingly.