2008 PLP 714 (SCMR)
Mst. ANWAR BEGUM through LRs. and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD FAZIL and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 714 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and M. Javed Buttar, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. ANWAR BEGUM through LRs. and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD FAZIL and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 714 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 714 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and M. Javed Buttar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 714 (SCMR) (Mst. ANWAR BEGUM through LRs. and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD FAZIL and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zafar Iqbal Ch., Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Mehmood-ul-Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 17 May, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 11-10-2000 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan passed in C.M. No.890, 1636, 1637/C of 2000 in R.F.A. No.8 of 1989).
S. 12(2)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Application for setting aside decree on plea of fraud and misrepresentation
High Court dismissed the application and declined to set aside decree on ground that no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation or even want of jurisdiction had been made out to impugn said decree
Even before Supreme Court it was not alleged that decree was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation or that decree in question had been passed without jurisdiction, but grievance of petitioner was that compromise on basis of which decree in question had been passed, was not being acted upon by the other side
Such was hardly a ground on which decree could be set aside under S.12(2), C.P.C.
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed by Supreme Court accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.
This petition calls in question an order dated 1.1-10-2000 passed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in a miscellaneous application filed therein bearing No.1636-C of 1999 under section 12(2) of the C.P.C. The learned High Court dismissed the said application and had declined to set aside the decree dated 4-10-1999 on the ground that no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation or even want or lack of jurisdiction had been made out to impugn the said decree. Even before us the complaint of the petitioner (sic) or not that the side through any fraud or misrepresentation or even that the decree in question had been passed without jurisdiction but the grievance is that the said compromise on the basis of which the decree in question had been passed, was not being acted upon by the other side.
2. This is hardly a ground on which a decree could be set aside under section 12(2) of the C.P.C.
3. In this view of the matter, this petition is misconceived which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. H.B.T./A-188/SC Petition dismissed.