2009 PLP 216 (MLD)
Mst. FATIMA — Petitioner Versus Mst. BUDHAI and 29 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 216 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. FATIMA — Petitioner Versus Mst. BUDHAI and 29 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 216 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 216 (MLD)?
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: 2009 PLP 216 (MLD) (Mst. FATIMA — Petitioner Versus Mst. BUDHAI and 29 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Aman Ullah Chaughata for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Saeed Ahmad for Respondent.
- 4. Conversely, the learned counsel for respondents contended that both the learned Courts below have already dismissed the application after appreciating the contentions of the parties.
Headnotes / Summary
O.XII R.2
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition--Application for comparison of thumb impressions was dismissed by trial Court
Plea raised was that in a pending suit by putting forged thumb impressions of the petitioner, the suit was got decreed by consent
Petitioner moved an application under O.XII R.2, C.P.C. on the said ground and during the pendency of the said application he moved another application for comparison of thumb impressions by the expert, which was dismissed by the trial Court
Evidence was yet to be recorded by the parties and if needed the trial Court could itself pass an order for the comparison of the thumb impression/signatures
Petitioner failed to point out any jurisdictional defect, legal infirmity, material irregularity with the concurrent conclusion drawn by the courts below
Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.
Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has challenged the order, dated 31-1-2007 and 21-7-2006 whereby the application of the petitioner for comparison of thumb impressions was dismissed.
2. The facts as stated by the petitioner are that a suit filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 was decreed with the consent of the petitioner/defendant on 6-6-1998. The petitioner who was defendant No.4 in the suit, being aggrieved of the aforesaid consent decree filed an appeal under section 12(2), C.P.C. on the ground that the petitioner has not appointed any counsel nor recorded any statement so the decree obtained by the respondent is result of fraud and misrepresentation. During the pendency of the application under section 12(2), C.P.C., the petitioner filed an application on 7-6-2001 for comparison of the thumb impression/signatures of the petitioner by the expert. The learned trial Court after receiving the reply of the said application, dismissed the same on 21-7-2006. The petitioner assailed the said order in revision but the same was too dismissed by, the learned revisional Court, hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both the learned Courts below have dismissed the application on wrongful assumption and has not applied the judicious mind. Further contended that the petitioner has challenged the validity of the consent decree mainly on the ground that the petitioner has not engaged any counsel neither execute any power of attorney so it is appropriate and also in the fitness of things to pass an order for the comparison of the thumb impression/signatures by any expert.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for respondents contended that both the learned Courts below have already dismissed the application after appreciating the contentions of the parties.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
6. The decree was passed on 6-6-1998 whereas the application under section. 12(2), C.P.C. was filed in the same year but the matter is still pending adjudication before the learned trial Court because of the frivolous application filed by the petitioner. The learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court after appreciating the contentions of the parties have rightly observed that the controversy between the parties shall be determined in the light of the over all evidence on the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Admittedly, the evidence is yet to be recorded by the parties and if needed be, the learned trial Court can itself pass any appropriate order for the comparison of the thumb impression/signatures. In any case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has miserably failed to point out any jurisdictional defect, legal infirmity, material irregularity with the concurrent conclusion drawn by the learned courts below.
7. Resultantly, this petition has no force and is dismissed with no order as to costs. The learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the 'application under section 12(2), C.P.C. filed by the petitioner positively within a period of three months after providing fair opportunities to the parties. A.M.R./F-31-/L Petition dismissed.