2014 Y L R 2379


2014 Y L R 2379

[Peshawar]

Before Musarrat Hilali, J

Mst. ZUBAIDA---Petitioner

Versus

Mst. HUSSAIN BIBI and 4 others---Respondents

Civil Revision No.773-P of 2013, decided on 12th December, 2013.

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----S. 12(2)---Decree, setting aside of---Fraud and misrepresentation---Scope---Contention of applicant was that she was not made party in the case and Trial Court dismissed application without framing of issues and recording of evidence---Validity---No procedure had been provided in the C.P.C. for proceedings under S.12(2), C.P.C.---Trial Court had to regulate its proceedings keeping in view the nature of allegations in the application---Trial Court might adopt any mode for disposal of application filed under S. 12(2), C.P.C.---No fraud and misrepresentation of fact was apparent on record in the present case---Respondent was held entitled to her shari share by the Trial Court after recording of evidence---Suit remained pending for more than three years and applicant was in the knowledge of the matter as she was real mother of respondents---Present application had been filed with mala fide on the part of applicant as she had no concern with the share of respondent---Trial Court had rightly dismissed the application of the applicant---Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

   M.Amin Khattak Lachi for Petitioner.

ORDER

            MUSARRAT HILALI, J.---Through the instant Revision petition, petitioner Mst.Zubaida has impugned the judgment dated 3-12-2012 recorded by the learned ADJ-III, Kohat, whereby appli-cation of the petitioner under section 12(2), C.P.C. has been dismissed.

2.         Brief facts of this case as per record are, that petitioner filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. before the learned Additional District Judge-III, Kohat alleging therein that judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court dated 2-2-2012 and confirmed by learned appellate court on 3-12-2012 have been obtained due to fraud and misrepresentation of facts. The learned Additional District Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner dismissed the said application on 4-9-2013 in limine, hence, this revision petition.

3.         Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner was one of the co-owner of the suit house as a part of the said house was given to her in lieu of dower by her ex-husband Sahib Gul; that the decree was obtained at her back as she was not made a party in the case; that the learned appellate court dismissed the application of the petitioner without framing of issues and recording of evidence; thus condemned the petitioner unheard. She added that the case be sent back to the learned appellate court for proper adjudication.

            Arguments heard. Record perused.

4.         The petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree dated 3-12-2012 recorded by learned Additional District Judge-Ill, Kohat on the ground that the same was the result of fraud and misrepresentation practiced upon her by respondents 1 to 5.

5.         The grievance of the petitioner is that out of the suit house, veranda and a room was given to her in lieu of dower by her ex-husband, predecessor of respondents 2 to 5 in the original suit. The marriage of petitioner with Sahib Gul was dissolved in the year, 1991 whereafter she married one Abdul Aziz and was living with him in Togh Bala. The plea of the petitioner is that she being co-owner of the suit house was not impleaded in Suit No.155/1 of 2009 and was condemned unheard.

6.         In order to fully understand the matter, it is necessary to give some details of Suit No.155/1 of 2009, which was instituted by respondent No.1 against respondents 2 to 5, in terms, that the suit house was originally the ancestral property of their father and after his death it devolved upon beside herself, her sister Qamar Sultana and brother Sahib Gul. She sought possession of 2/8 share of the suit house being legal heir of Umar Gul.

7.         Respondents 2 to 5 contested the suit and after necessary proceedings the learned  trial  court  decreed  the  suit  on  2-2-2012. Dissatisfied with the same, respondents 2 to 5 filed appeal but the same was dismissed by the learned lower appellate court on 3-12-2012. The judgment and decree dated 3-12-2012 of learned lower appellate court became final as no revision was filed against the said judgment.

8.         The petitioner has impugned the said   judgment   and   decree   under   sec-tion 12(2), C.P.C. on the ground that neither issues were framed nor evidence pro and contra was recorded by the learned lower appellate court.

9.         It is to be mentioned here that in the proceedings under section 12(2), C.P.C. no procedure has been provided by the Code. The matter is left to the satisfaction of the Court, which has to regulate its proceedings keeping in view the nature of allegations in the application. The court may adopt any mode for its disposal.

10.       In the present case, by going through the record, no fraud and misrepresentation of facts is apparent on record. Respondent No.1 was held entitled to her Shari share by learned trial court after recording detailed pro and contra evidence. The plea of the petitioner that she has been condemned unheard has no force at all as the suit remained pending between respondents 1 to 5 for more than three years. It does not appeal to one's mind that petitioner was not in the knowledge of the said matter as she is none else but is the real mother of respondents 2 to 5. It seems that when the said respondents lost their battle, they brought in their mother who after her divorce in the year, 1991 went into deep slumber and woke up after 22 years whereafter she filed the application in hand which shows mala fide on her part as the petitioner neither during the subsistence of her marriage nor after divorce has claimed her dower at any forum. Of course, she can claim her dower from the share of Sahib Gul but shall have no concern with the share of respondent No.1.

11.       In view of the above, this court is of the considered opinion that the learned lower appellate court has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner, hence this revision petition being devoid of legal merits is dismissed with no order as to costs.

AG/300/P                                                                                            Revision dismissed.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

P L D 2016 Supreme Court 358

P L D 2016 Supreme Court 358 Present: Mian Saqib Nisar, Iqbal Hameedur Rehman and Tariq Parvez, JJ Sahabzadi MAHARUNISA and another---Appellants/Petitioners Versus Mst. GHULAM SUGHRAN and another---Respondents Civil Appeals Nos. 1176 and 1177 of 2015, and Civil Petition No.1428-L of 2015.           (Against the order dated 11-6-2015 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench passed in C.M. Nos. 385, 388/2009 and 2051 of 2015) (a) Words and phrases --- ----"Merge" and "merger"---Definitions.             Chambers English Dictionary 7th Edn.; Oxford English Dictionary (1933); Corpus Juris Secoundum (1936) and The Constitution of India by Prof. S.R.Bhansali ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) --- ----S.12(2)---Application under S.12(2), C.P.C, filing of---Forum---"Court which passed the final judgment, decree or order"---Principles---For all legal purposes, it was the final decree/order of the last Court in ...
Read more

P L D 2009 Lahore 362

P L D 2009 Lahore 362 Before Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Tariq Shamim and M.A. Zafar, JJ GHULAM MURTAZA and another---Appellants Versus THE STATE---Respondent Criminal Appeal No.284-J of 2008, decided on 27th March, 2009. (a) Administration of justice--- ----Principles---Quintessence of the Civilization's evolution and growth in the legal field is a progression from dispensation of justice according to the principle of "justice, equity and good conscience" to "justice according to law"---Rationale or raison d'etre for this momentum, quite easy to discern and comprehend, is that justice ought not to be administered according to whims, caprice or subjective standards of an individual judge but it should be dispensed according to some codified or stipulated standards so as to render the outcome consistent and reasonably predictable---Predictability of judicial response to an action or inaction of a person is important because, by and large, people livi...
Read more

2010 SCMR 1181, Supreme Court Allowed Superdari

2010 SCMR 1181 [Supreme Court of Pakistan] Present: Nasir-ul-Mulk, Raja Fayyaz Ahmad and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ ALLAH DITTA----Petitioner Versus THE STATE----Respondent Criminal Petition No.461 of 2009, decided on 12th February, 2010. (On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court Lahore dated 3-6-2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No.674 of 2009). (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 74, Proviso---`Any private individual'---Meaning and scope ---Phrase "any private individual" is to be read ejusdem generis with the preceding specific words, "accused, or his associate or relative' ---By application of the rule the "private individual" mentioned in the proviso refers to such an `individual who has some nexus with the offender or the offence-I-Innocent owner of the vehicle used in the commission of the crime having no nexus whatsoever, either with the accused or the crime, would not fall within the scope of the ph...
Read more