1987 S C M R 171
Decree obtained by fraud‑‑Validity of same challenged on ground that counsel had colluded with opposite party‑‑Petitioner's application under S.151, C.P.C. to delete counsel from list of respondents as he was neither necessary nor proper party to proceedings, not granted‑‑High Court's view that counsel could be impleaded as respondent in application under S.12(2), C.P.C. upheld‑
S. 12(2) & S.151‑Abuse of process of Court‑‑Counsel colluding with opposite party—Decree obtained by fraud, challenged‑‑Plea that counsel was neither necessary nor proper party, repelled‑‑Counsel could be impleaded as respondent in proceedings under S.12(2), C.P C. in circumstances.
1987 S C M R 171Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJMUNIR AHMAD KHAN‑‑PetitionerVersusSAMIULLAH KHAN and another‑‑RespondentsCivil Petitions Nos. 833 and 834 of 1986, decided on 27th October 1986.(On appeal from the Judgment dated 25‑5‑1986 of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision Nos. 746 and 747 of 1981).
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)—Decree obtained by fraud‑‑Validity of same challenged on ground that counsel had colluded with opposite party‑‑Petitioner's application under 5.151, C.P.C. to delete counsel from list of respondents as he was neither necessary nor proper party to proceedings, not granted‑‑High Court's view that counsel could be impleaded as respondent in application under S.12(2), C.P.C. upheld‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)—
‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2) & S.151‑Abuse of process of Court‑‑Counsel colluding with opposite party—Decree obtained by fraud, challenged‑‑Plea that counsel was neither necessary nor proper party, repelled‑‑Counsel could be impleaded as respondent in proceedings under S.12(2), C.P C. in circumstances.
Ch. Muhammad Hasan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Muhammad Ghani, Advocate Supreme Court and Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 2 to 6.
Date of hearing: 27th October, 1986.
ORDER
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑These two petitions are being disposed of by a common order because they arise also from a common order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court.
The facts necessary to be stated for purposes of this order are that Mr. Amir Ali Malik, Advocate was impleaded as a respondent in an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. (subject‑matter of Civil Petition No.833 of 1986) while Malik Mohammad Salim, Advocate, was impleaded as a respondent in another (subject‑matter of Civil Petition No. 834 of 1986). Both these applications under section 12(2), C.P.C. were filed to challenge the validity of the two decrees on the ground that the Advocates (who were impleaded as) had filed written statements in two suits wherein they accepted the claim of the plaintiff in the said suits by colluding with him and, therefore, the decrees had been obtained by fraud.
The petitioner herein moved applications under section 151. C . P. C . in both these proceedings wherein he prayed for deleting the said Advocates from the array of the respondents on the ground that they were neither necessary nor proper parties to the said proceedings as were only witnesses therein.
The applications of the petitioner were dismissed by the trial Court and the revision filed against them under section 115, C.P.C. were also dismissed by the High Court observing:‑
"Since Messrs Ameer Ali Malik and Malik Muhammad Saleem Advocates allegedly colluded with the petitioner and others and filed written statements admitting the claim of the petitioner and others pursuant to their collusion with the petitioner and others. They have, therefore, rightly been impleaded as respondents in the applications under section 12(2), C.P.C."
By these two petitions leave is sought against the said order of the High Court. We have heard Ch. Muhammad Hasan, Advocate, in support of these petitions and are inclined to agree with the view taken by the High Court that the said two Advocates could be impleaded as respondents in the application under section 12(2), C.P.C.
These petitions are dismissed.
M.I. Petitions dismissed.
0 comments:
Post a Comment