1991 PLP 172 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD CHIRAGH and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD FAZIL and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 172 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD CHIRAGH and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD FAZIL and 4 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 172 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 172 (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: 1991 PLP 172 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD CHIRAGH and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD FAZIL and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul Aziz Qureshi for Petitioners.
- 'Malik Talib Hussain for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 12(2) & 115
Application for setting aside judgment and decree passed in appeal, on ground of fraud and misrepresentation was dismissed on the ground that applicants being not judgment-debtors could not challenge decree passed by Court
Application by a person other than judgment debtor on ground of fraud and misrepresentation was sustainable
Appellate Court instead of rejecting application straightaway should have framed issues and afforded opportunity to applicants to lead evidence in proof of allegations of fraud and misrepresentation made by him in his application
Order passed by Court below Was arbitrary and illegal
Order passed in appeal was set aside and case was remanded to Appellate Court for fresh decision of application, in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Aziz Qureshi for Petitioners. 'Malik Talib Hussain for Respondents. On 11-6-1983 Muhammad Chiragh and Muhammad Riaz petitioners filed application under section 12(2), C.P.C: for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 19-9-1982 passed in appeal titled 'Muhammad Fazil and others v. Shahmand', by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. This application was dismissed on 10-10-1989 on the ground that the applicants/petitioners being not Judgment debtors, could not challenge the decree passed by it by riling application under, subsection (2) of section 12, C.P.C. and that the learned counsel for the respondent had also contended that the petitioners had gone up to the Court of Commissioner for challenging the impugned registered sale-deed but they failed and they also filed civil suit which was dismissed on 26-6-1982.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly submitted that the application of the petitioners under section 12(2), C.P.C. has been dismissed without framing f issues and affording the petitioners opportunity to prove the alleged fraud and misrepresentation alleged by them and that any person other than the judgment debtor can file application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to controvert him.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with car-. It is by now well-settled that application by a person other than judgment-debtor for setting aside the judgment and decree, on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation is sustainable. I feel that instead of rejecting the application straightaway, the trial Court should have framed issues and afford opportunity to the petitioners/applicants to lead evidence in proof of the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation made by them in the application. The impugned order seems to be arbitrary and illegal. Pursuant to the above discussion, the revision is accepted and the order dated 10-10-1954 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang is set aside and the case is sent back to him for fresh decision of the application of the petitioners in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made by this Court in this order. The parties are left to bear their own costs. AA./M-2491/L Case remanded.