2007 PLP 76 (CLC)
ABDUL SATTAR — Applicant Versus ATHAR NAEEM and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 76 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar, J |
| Parties | ABDUL SATTAR — Applicant Versus ATHAR NAEEM and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 76 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, (VI of 1959) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 76 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 76 (CLC) (ABDUL SATTAR — Applicant Versus ATHAR NAEEM and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hafiz Muhammad Yusuf for Petitioner.
- M.A. Zafar for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 13 & 15
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)
Compromise between the parties
Application against alleged fraud and misrepresentation
Rent Controller passed ejectment order and tenant filed appeal against judgment of Rent Controller
Compromise was effected between the parties during pendency of appeal, according to which landlords on payment of Rs.65,000 to tenant, were entitled to seek possession
Tenant, subsequently moved an application under S.12(2), C.P.C. stating therein that agreed amount of Rs.65,000 had not been paid to him by landlords and order of his ejectment which was based upon compromise, was the result of fraud and misrepresentation
Said application was dismissed by the Court holding that no fraud had been practised upon tenant, while arriving to a compromise between parties through their statements
Court had rightly held that case did not fall within purview of S.12(2), C.P.C.
Findings of Court could not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
The petitioner is a tenant under the respondents, against whom, an ejectment petition was filed and the order of his eviction was passed on 30-3-1995. Aggrieved of the above, the petitioner filed an appeal and during the pendency of the appeal, a compromise was effected between the parties, according to which, the respondents, on the payment of Rs.65,000 to the petitioner, were entitled to seek the possession from the petitioner. Anyhow, subsequently the petitioner moved an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. stating that, the amount of Rs.65,000 has not been paid to him, resultantly, the order of his eviction which is based upon compromise, is the result of fraud and misrepresentation. This application has been dismissed in limine by the learned Court below, holding that no fraud has been practised upon the petitioner, while arriving to a compromise between the parties through their statements.
2. I concur with the learned Court below that this is not the case falling within the purview of section 12(2), C.P.C. No interference in the revisional jurisdiction is called for. This petition thus, has no force and is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./A-991/L Petition dismissed.