2023 SCMR 2158
12 ( 2 ) --- Plea of fraud and misrepresentation --- Part disputed property sold during pendency of appeal before the High Court --- No fraud or misrepresentation played on the Court --- In the present case essentially , no case under section 12 ( 2 ) of the C.P.C. is made out by the appellants ( purported bona fide purchasers ) because no fraud was played on the Court --- If there is any fraud , at best , it is inter se the parties which does not attract the provisions of section 12 ( 2 ) of the C.P.C .--- Section 12 ( 2 ) of the C.P.C. requires that fraud or mis - representation be played on the court and that consequently the order obtained is through fraud or mis - representation --- In this context , the applications under section 12 ( 2 ) of the C.P.C. I were filed against judgment of the Appellate Court in favour of plaintiff , who had filed a suit against the seller , and no case of fraud or mis - representation is made out in that case against the seller Seller deliberately did not inform the Court that he actually sold the land during the pendency of the appeal to the appellants - However , this does not fall within the mandate of section 12 ( 2 ) of the C.P.C. and , at best , is a fraud inter se the parties -- Furthermore , the rule of lis pendens is attracted in the present case as the transfer of the disputed property in favour of seller and appellants ( purported bona fide purchasers ) took place during the pendency of the appeal , which means that the sale , at best , in favour of the appellants is subject to the final outcome of the litigation and they cannot claim any independent right to the property.
0 Comments