2017 PLP 773 (MLD)

ISHTIAQ IBRAHIM, J.

The petitioners have filed the instant petition under section 12(2) read with section 151, C.P.C. for setting aside the judgment dated 27.09.2016, passed by this Court being obtained on fraud and misrepresentation.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that at the time of deciding the writ petition he was not given an opportunity to file comments so that he should have produced all the proof available with him; secondly that certain documents were not considered by this Court presented at the time of arguments. He further argued that as the respondent has concealed various facts from this Court and has obtained judgment on 27.9.2016, through misrepresentation and fraud as well as the judgment passed by this Court is without jurisdiction, so by acceptance of this petition the judgment passed by this Court on 27.9.2016 be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners heard in limine and perused the available record.

4. The scope of section 12(2), C.P.C. is limited, so while exercising jurisdiction under section 12(2), C.P.C. the Court has to restrict itself only to the extent of deciding the matter of fraud, misrepresentation and want of jurisdiction that too, in the absence of petitioners or their counsel. The word misrepresentation has neither defined in section 12(2), C.P.C. nor in the entire C.P.C., so to understand the word misrepresentation reference could be made on Black Law Dictionary, which defines that:-- "Misrepresentation.

1. The act of making a false or misleading assertion about something, usu, with the intent to deceive. The word denotes not just written or spoken words but also any other conduct that amounts to a false assertion.

2. The assertion so made; an assertion that does not accord with the facts." In Para 5 of the judgment dated 27.09.2016 passed by this Court almost all the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for present petitioners have been discussed. At the time of arguing the case the learned counsel for petitioners has never asked the Court for furnishing comments or requested the Court for providing any documentary evidence in his possession. All the documents on which learned counsel for petitioners now wants to take benefits, were available on file and the learned counsel for petitioners could not rebut the same at the time of deciding and arguing the writ petition or unable to challenge the validity, propriety and legality of all the documents placed on record by the then petitioner. The learned counsel for petitioners argued that case with full vehemence and has given ample opportunity to rebut the arguments addressed at the bar by learned counsel for the then petitioner. All the documents were available on file at the time of deciding writ petition and the learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any mistake in the impugned judgment passed by this Court.

4. For foregoing reasons, this petition along with C. M. No.564-D/2016 are dismissed in limine. ZC/4/P Petition dismissed.