Misrepresentation and fraud

2024 PTD 872 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss.36, 39 & 70Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionMisrepresentation and fraud

Petitioner / importer was aggrieved of judgment passed by Tribunal referring the matter to National Tariff Commission for de novo determination

Application filed under S.12(2), C.P.C. was dismissed

Validity

Any such decision could not be allowed to remain in field, if it was procured without impleading a party whose rights were involved and such party had been injured

Such party was entitled to file an application under S.12(2), C.P.C.

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction declined to interfere in the matter as petitioner / importer had an alternate remedy in terms of S. 70 of Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015, whereby appeal to Tribunal was provided

Petitioner in fact had availed such remedy

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2021 YLR 703 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Arts. 117 & 120Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)Transaction by Parda Nasheen ladyOnus to provePrincipleJudgment, setting aside ofMisrepresentation and fraud

Plaintiffs/petitioners claimed to be owners of suit property on the basis of gift deed executed in their favour by defendant/respondent who was their sister

Trial Court decreed suit in favour of plaintiffs/petitioners on the basis of conceding statement

Defendant/respondent denied making any conceding statement and sought setting aside of judgment on the plea of misrepresentation and fraud

Trial Court in exercise of jurisdiction under S.12(2), C.P.C. set aside judgment and decree passed against defendant/ respondent, which order was maintained by Lower Appellate Court

Validity

Judgment and decree in question was passed solely on the basis of consenting statement of defendant/respondent but neither she appeared during trial nor her statement was recorded

When defendant/ respondent came to know regarding fraud having been committed, she rushed to Court there and then and submitted application under S.12(2), C.P.C.

Heavy onus to prove was on transferee/beneficiary of transaction with Parda Nasheen lady

High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below as the same were result of proper application of judicial mind

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2015 YLR 124 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 15Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionEviction order, setting aside ofMisrepresentation and fraudIngredientsScope of S.12(2), C.P.C.Applicant had failed to point out any fraud or misrepresentation to the court in obtaining the ejectment orderNone of the ingredients of fraud and misrepresentation were mentioned in the application

Provisions of S. 12 (2), C.P.C. could not be extended to include the claim of ownership by the aggrieved party while challenging judicial orders passed by competent court

Remedy to the applicant was a civil suit to claim his title on the property and not the provisions of S.12(2), C.P.C. which had a limited scope of examining the validity of a judgment/ decree on the plea of lack of jurisdiction, fraud and misrepresentation

Applicant had not alleged any fraud against the respondent in obtaining the orders rather the facts were otherwise

Applicant had failed to point out any mis-reading and non-reading of evidence while in passing the impugned order

No jurisdictional defect was found in the impugned order

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.