2009 PLP 763 (CLC)
NEELUM VALLEY DEVELOPMENT BOARD through Chairman and another — Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD SADDIQUE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 763 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | High Court (AJ&K) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NEELUM VALLEY DEVELOPMENT BOARD through Chairman and another — Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD SADDIQUE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Administration of justice, (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 763 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Administration of justice, (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 763 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court (AJ&K) 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 763 (CLC) (NEELUM VALLEY DEVELOPMENT BOARD through Chairman and another — Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD SADDIQUE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
O. VII, Rr. 2, 11, O.IX, R.13, Ss.12(2) & 151
Defendants did not appear despite service and they were proceeded ex parte
Trial Court recorded ex parte evidence and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs
Defendants challenged said ex parte judgment and decree through a regular suit on the ground of fraud and deception and filed written statement and prayed for rejection of the plaint on the ground that a regular suit for setting aside an ex parte judgment and decree being not competent under S.12(2), C.P.C. the plaint was liable to be rejected under R.11, Order VII, C.P.C.
Said suit was also resisted on the ground of limitation
Plaintiffs filed another application for treating the suit as an application under S.12(2), C.P.C. and on alternative they requested that the suit could be treated as application under S.151, C.P.C.
Trial Court after hearing the parties on that application, declined the conversion of the proceedings as were requested and rejected the plaint under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.
Court had inherent jurisdiction to convert one kind of proceedings into another and a party alleged to have obtained the decree or judgment from the court, playing fraud and deception, should not be allowed to reap the fruits of its fraud because fraud vitiated the most solemn proceedings--Appeal was accepted and application filed on behalf of the defendants/appellants herein, for treating the suit as an application under S.12(2), C.P.C. was granted
Trial Court was directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.
Scope
All the Rules of procedure were meant for dispensation of justice and to preserve the valuable rights of the parties to a suit
Courts were duty bound to apply them for the same purpose, otherwise the litigants had to suffer a lot and very purpose of law would also be frustrated
Courts had also inherent jurisdiction to convert one kind of proceedings into another; and a party alleged to have obtained the decree or judgment from the Court, playing fraud and deception, should not be allowed to reap the fruits of its fraud, because fraud would vitiate the most solemn proceedings.