2009 PLP 785 (CLC)
Raja MUHAMMAD BASHIR — Appellant Versus SHAUKAT HABIB and 5 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 785 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | High Court (AJ&K) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Raja MUHAMMAD BASHIR — Appellant Versus SHAUKAT HABIB and 5 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Administration of justice, (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 785 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Administration of justice, (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 785 (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 785 (CLC) (Raja MUHAMMAD BASHIR — Appellant Versus SHAUKAT HABIB and 5 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 42 & 39
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.12(2) & O.XXIII & R.3
Suit for declaration and cancellation of sale-deed
Challenging judgment and decree on allegation of fraud and misrepresentation
Declaratory suit was filed seeking cancellation of sale-deed regarding property in dispute
During pendency of suit, parties entered into compromise, they recorded their statements, however before decree could be passed on the basis of compromise deed, defendant submitted application in the Trial Court alleging that fraud had been committed on him
Defendant sought relief that compromise deed be annulled and no decree be passed on the basis of the same
Trial Court framed issue on the basis of said application and plaintiffs feeling aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, filed in appeal before the Appellate Court, which was dismissed
Finally Supreme Court accepted appeal of the plaintiffs observing that after recording a compromise, Trial Court was bound to pass a decree in view of compromise as envisaged under O.XXIII, R.3, C.P.C.
While controversy was pending in the Supreme Court, defendant filed declaratory suit with prayer for possession of suit land
Trial Court rejected plaint in view of S.12(2), C.P.C.
Case of the plaintiffs was that the amendment in S.12, C.P.C. was effective retrospectively and the Trial Court had committed no illegality while rejecting plaint of the defendant
Amendment in S.12, C.P.C. providing a remedy to challenge a decree or order passed on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation, had no retrospective effect; and it would apply from the date of its coming into force
Suits filed before the date of amendment or date of adaption in Azad Kashmir were not hit by that amendment
When the suit was pending before the Trial Court prior to amendment, it could even be treated as application under S.12(2), C.P.C. in order to meet the ends of justice and it was unjustified under the law to throw the plaint/case of defendant out of the court on the basis of a technicality
Procedure while entertaining an application under S.12(2), C.P.C. was the same as provided for trial of suit
Rejection of suit merely on the basis that the word "plaint" had been mentioned in plea of application, was in no way justified under law nor it was in the interest of justice to reject the plaint
Applicant's suit was competent to be decided on its merits
Impugned judgment and decree was set aside and case was remanded to be decided on merits.
All laws, rules and regulations, were meant for the advancement of justice and not to suppress the remedy
Courts always leaned in favour of adjudication on merits, rather than resorting to technicality.