Section 12(2)---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 181---Fraud-

---No party could take advantage of its own fraud---Fraud would vitiate most solemn proceedings---Article 181 of Limitation Act, 1908 was applicable for filing application under S.12(2), Civil Procedure Code against alleged fraud and misrepresentation.

Mst. Sarwari Begum  
Versus
 Ata-ur-Rehman
1997 C L C  1500

No reason was ever furnished in the memo of gift or pleadings

The additional setback of the controversy would be that the alleged donors had their siblings as well, but no reason was ever furnished in the memo of gift or pleadings that for what evil deeds they were deprived of the said benefit. See Sadar Abbas Vs. Province of Punjab and others (2015 CLC 822), Barkat Ali through Legal Heirs and others Vs. Muhammad Ismail through Legal Heirs and others (2002 SCMR 1938), Mst. Manzoor Begum (deceased) through L. Rs. versus Mst. Fateh Bibi, etc. (2016 SCMR 1596), and Allah Ditta and others Vs. Manak alias Muhammad Siddique and others (2017 SCMR 402).


Used in Judgment of
Lahore High Court
Civil Rev. Against Decree
784-D-06
2018 LHC 3056

Four clauses applicable to the plaint

The word “shall” means that it is mandatory and the court must reject plaint if court finds any of the four clauses applicable to the plaint. Only contents of plaint to be seen but court not bound to accept them – discretion to biased judiciously.


Haji Abdul Karim    Vs.    Florida Builders.
PLD 2012 S.C. 247

 Case Laws : 

Order. VII Rule.11

Section no.17- Fraud---Definition

---Allegation of fraud---Burden of proof---Fraud vitiates all solemn acts and any instrument, deed or judgment, or decree obtained through fraud is a nullity in the eye of law and can be questioned at any time and can be ignored altogether by any Court of law before whom they are produced in any proceeding---Duty of Court in such a case stated.


Muhammad Younus Khan and 12 others
Versus
Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary, Forest and Agriculture, Peshawar and others.
1993 S C M R 618

Fraudulent transaction

-    Fraudulent transaction---Effect---Fraudulent transaction vitiates even most solemn proceedings---Such transaction has no foundation to stand upon---Whenever such transaction is declared null and void, then whole series of such order along with superstructure built upon same is bound to collapse.

Talib Hussain and others
Versus
Member, Board of Revenue and others
2003 S C M R 549

No period prescribed for filing

SECTION 115

No period prescribed for filing – should be filed within 90 days failing which discretion might not be exercised in petitioner’s favour on grant of unreasonable delay.

1995 SCMR 69

Section .12(2)--- “Fraud”

-  Every representation made to a Court which is deliberately false amounts to a fraud and would vitiate a decree subject to the exception that a mere falsity of a claim to the knowledge of the person putting forward the claim would not be ground for setting aside the decree on the ground of fraud---Where a claim is false there is a false representation made to the Court but this cannot by itself be a ground for setting aside a decree.


Lal Din and another   V.  Muhammad Ibrahim
1993 S C M R 710

S.561-A, Cr.P.C. and criminal appeal filed by accused

-Order of acquittal having been obtained fraudulently on the basis of compromise keeping real mother of the deceased out of the same was recalled by High Court under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. and criminal appeal filed by accused was deemed to be pending.

Muhammad Yaqoob
Versus
The State
1997 P Cr. L. J 1979

Judgment on Admission

Order. XII Rule16.

Judgment on Admission – plaintiff upon application can move for judgment on admission whether relating to who suit or partially, likewise, defendant can also move for dismissal of suit wholly or partially – However, if admission is only by one of the defendants only it will have no bearing on the others’ case.


Tanvir Ahmad     Vs.    Malir Development Authority
PLD 2012 Sindh 66

Fraud is not void,

-    Order made by a Court, tribunal or other authority acting without jurisdiction as regards subject-matter, pecuniary value or territorial limits – Void – Order obtained by fraud, however, not void but only voidable.
An order obtained by fraud is not void, but only voidable. It remains operative as long as it is not set aside, rescinded, or recalled, by a competent authority in proper proceedings.
While it is true, as has been so often stated, that fraud vitiates all proceedings, it must nevertheless, be borne in mind that allegations of fraud generally raise mixed questions of law and fact which can only be established in an elaborate inquiry. It is for this reason that an order obtained by fraud can be regarded as only being voidable at the instance of any party adversely affected by it.
The  Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore
Versus
Raja Mohammad Fazil Khan and others
PLD 1975 Supreme Court 331

SECTION 12(2) & 151 C.P.C.

Judgment and decree in question was assailed by respondent under S. 12(2), C.P.C. and the same was set aside by Lower Appellate court in exercise of revisional  jurisdiction ---Validity--- Court had jurisdiction to take cognizance of open fraud---No rule was required to correct/rectify a wrong---Court had always inherent powers to prevent abuse of process of law by moulding relief in appropriate cases---Provisions of S.151, C.P.C. were rightly invoked by Lower Appellate Court in aid of justice, as it was thought necessary in the circumstances of the case to prevent abuse of process of the court and to avoid a situation resulting in stalemate.

Muhammad Ismail     Versus    Rehmat Ali
2009 YLR 1265
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore

Land Revenue Act, 1967(XVII of 1967) Section 4 (7)

Land Laws



W.P. Land Revenue Act, 1967(XVII of 1967)
Section 4 (7)
-    Expression “defaulter” includes “surety”-
-    Lambardar who is liable for the arrears of land revenue is a “defaulter”-within the meaning –A third person as a surety of the “borrower” deemed defaulter in these proceedings

PLD 1988 LAH 627 (Fazal Kareem)
H.N (9) AND PARA 5 OF JUDEMENT

CPC Section no. 9

Mere averments in plaint would not confer jurisdiction on civil court where it inherently lacked jurisdiction.

PLD 1992 Pesh. 87 (D.B.)
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Powered by Blogger.

Case Law Search