2005 PLP 626 (MLD)

By means of this revision petition the petitioner challenges the order dated 22-11-2004 passed by Mr. Bahadar Ali Khan, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore whereby he had summoned the petitioner and six others in a private complaint filed under section 302, 337-F(iii), 324, 148 and 149, P.P.C.

2. Precise grievance of the petitioner is that the said order had been obtained from the learned Additional Sessions Judge by practising fraud and by concealment of material fact inasmuch as the factum of the earlier complaint having been entertained by another learned Additional Sessions Judge, and sent for inquiry to the Superintendent of Police had been concealed. The learned counsel submits that filing of fresh complaint was in fact a devise used by the complainant to wriggle out of the earlier order passed by Mr. Javaid Rashid Mahboobi, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the latter had sent the case for inquiry under section 202, Cr.P.C. to the Superintendent of Police. He adds that the complainant's said manoeuvre was designed to get the case fixed up before a Judge of his own choice and thus an attempt had been made to steal a march on the Court.

3. On being asked if a formal application for the recall of the order which according to the learned counsel had been obtained through fraud and misrepresentation had been made to the Court concerned, the reply of the learned counsel was in the negative. However, the learned counsel submits that an application had been moved before Mr. Bahadar Ali Khan, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, informing him that the connected State case was pending with Mr. Javaid Rasheed Mahboobi, Additional Sessions Judge but he referred the matter to the learned Sessions Judge, who in turn entrusted the case to Mian Khadim Hussain Additional Sessions Judge. The learned counsel informs that at present the matter is with the learned Sessions Judge, who is to decide as to which learned Additional Sessions Judge would hear the complaint as well as the State case.

4. As far as the legal position is concerned it is now well-settled that whenever there is an allegation that an order had been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of facts from a particular Court, the said Court has the Power to undo that order. In this connection it would be instructive to the refer to the case of The Chief Settlement Commissioner v. Raja Muhammad Fazal Khan (PLD 1975 SC 331) wherein the Honourable Supreme Court had held that not only a Court of general jurisdiction but even a Tribunal or Court of Special or limited jurisdiction has the power to recall or review an order obtained by fraud. If any such application is made by the petitioner for recalling the impugned order dated 22-11-2004, the learned Additional Sessions Judge who is seized of the case shall first decide the said application objectively after affording the petitioner full opportunity to present his standpoint.

5. The learned Additional Advocate-General who had appeared on Court's call to render assistance also did not have any objection to the passing of such a direction.

6. This revision petition is disposed of in the terms noted hereinabove. N.H.Q./S-276/L Order accordingly.