2015 C L C 931


2015 C L C 931

[Peshawar]

Before Lal Jan Khattak, J

GUL SHAD----Petitioner

versus

ROYEDAD and another----Respondents

Civil Revision No.135-M of 2013, decided on 20th August, 2014.

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---

----S. 12(2)---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42---Suit for declaration---Compromise---Decree, setting aside of---Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. alleging fraud and misrepresentation---Contention of applicant was that he had purchased suit property and had possession of the same---Application was dismissed concurrently---Validity---Applicant had prima facie valuable rights and lawful interests in the suit land and he was necessary party to the suit---Applicant was initially arrayed as one of the defendants in the plaint but later on he was deleted from the panel of defendants on the application of respondent-plaintiff---Said application for deletion of applicant from the panel of defendants could be termed as a fraud and misrepresentation having been committed by the respondent-plaintiff upon the court---Suit property was purchased by the applicant and he was in possession of the same---Applicant was entitled to defend his interests in the suit land---Court was not required to go into deep appreciation of a document produced and relied upon by either of the parties to the suit while deciding an application under S.12(2), C.P.C. as such an exercise should be undertaken in case the said application was to be accepted---Tentative assessment of available material was to be made, as principles and considerations of appreciation of evidence in a regular suit and applications under S.12(2), C.P.C. were not the same but were altogether different---Applicant had proved that impugned decree was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation---Both the courts below had committed error while dismissing application and appeal of the applicant---Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below were set aside and Trial Court was directed to decide the suit on merits---Revision was accepted in circumstances.

            Parvaiz Khan for Petitioner.

            Shamsul Hadi for Respondent No.1.

            Respondent No.2: Ex parte.

            Date of hearing: 20th August, 2014.

JUDGMENT

            LAL JAN KHATTAK, J.--- This revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28-1-2013 of the learned District Judge/Zilla Qazi, Buner at Daggar, whereby appeal of the petitioner, against the judgment and decree dated 15-12-2011 delivered by the learned Civil Judge/Illaqa Qazi-I, Buner at Daggar, has been dismissed.

2.         Short facts of the case are that the respondent No .l had filed a suit against the petitioner and respondent No.2 for declaration, specific performance of a verbal agreement and cancellation of gift mutation No.250 attested on 30-9-1994 in respect of the landed property detailed in the heading of plaint (hereinafter to be referred as the suit land). According to the averments of plaint, the suit land was owned by the respondent No.1 who alienated the same to the respondent No.2 by way of gift with some conditions. It was further averred in the plaint that subsequently respondent No.2 transferred a portion of the suit land to the petitioner. It was the respondent-plaintiff's case that as the respondent No.2 has refused to give him the suit land back, therefore, he has filed the instant suit against him as well as against the petitioner. The suit was contested by the petitioner by filing his written statement wherein he pleaded that he has purchased portion of the suit land from the respondent No.2 through deed executed on 24-12-2003 for sale consideration of Rs.50,000.

3.         Case record reveals that the respondent No.1 during pendency of his suit moved an application before the trial Court for deletion of the petitioner's name, who was defendant No.2, from the column of defendants for his being an unnecessary party to the suit. This application was allowed by the learned trial Court on 19-12-2006 and the petitioner's name was deleted from the suit as defendant. Record further shows that thereafter, on 20-6-2007, the respondent plaintiff and respondent No.2-defendant compromised with each other as a result of which suit of the respondent No.1 was decreed as prayed for on 20-6-2007. This decree was assailed by the petitioner through an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. but his this application was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 15-12-2011. Petitioner impugned the dismissal of his application in appeal but that too was dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 28-1-2013, hence the instant revision petition.

4.         Arguments heard and record gone through.

5.         Thorough and careful examination of the record would reveal that in the plaint the respondent No.1-plaintiff has averred that the respondent No.2 after getting the suit land from him had transferred with possession some portion in the suit land to the petitioner. In reply to the averments of plaint, the petitioner took up the plea that he has purchased some of the suit land from the respondent No.2 through sale-deed dated 24-12-2003 for consideration. In order to prove such plea the petitioner produced and examined seven witnesses. He himself appeared as PW-4 and deposed that he had purchased the suit land through sale-deed Exh.PW.4/1 against a sum of Rs.50,000 which is in his possession and over which he has raised construction etc. Scribe of the deed appeared before the Court as PW-2 and supported the deed Exh.PW4/1. One Muhammad Zada appeared before the Court as PW-5 and deposed that in his presence the respondent No.2 had received Rs.50,000 from the petitioner. Likewise Meer Baz, a marginal witness of the deed Exh.PW4/1, appeared before the Court as PW-6. He also supported the alienation of sale made by the respondent No.2 in favour of the petitioner.

6.         Narration of the above referred evidence would show that the petitioner has prima facie valuable rights and lawful interest in the suit land and he was necessary party to the suit. Even initially he was so arrayed as defendant No.2 by the respondent No.1 in his plaint but later on for no good legal reasons and grounds he was deleted from the panel of defendants and that too on the written application of the respondent No.1. This application for deletion of the petitioner can be termed as a fraud and misrepresentation having been committed by the respondent-plaintiff upon the Court. Furthermore, such fraud of the respondent was augmented when he obtained a compromise decree in his favour from the respondent No.2 which was in respect of the property purchased by the petitioner and possessed by him as well.

7.         A look of the petitioner's evidence would show that he has lawful interest in the suit land and he was legally entitled to defend his such lawful interests in the suit land. The appreciation of case evidence by the Courts below too is not legal and proper as no issue was framed by the learned trial Court regarding the evidential worth and admissibility or otherwise of Exh.PW4/1. Furthermore, while deciding an application under section 12(2), C.P.C., a Court of law is not required to go into a deep appreciation of a particular document produced and relied upon by either of the parties to the suit as the same exercise would ultimately be undertaken by the trial Court in case application under section 12(2), C.P.C. is accepted. For deciding the issue of setting-aside a decree allegedly obtained through fraud and misrepresentation, a tentative assessment of the available material would be made as principles and considerations of appreciation of evidence in a regular suit and application under section 12(2), C.P.C. are not the same but are altogether different.

8.         The petitioner through his oral as well as documentary evidence has amply proved his case that the decree dated 20-6-2007 was obtained by the respondent No.1 through fraud and misrepresentation with intent to deprive him of his valuable property. Both the Courts below, in estimation of this Court, have fallen in legal error by dismissing the application and appeal of the petitioner. Therefore, I accept the instant revision petition and set aside both the judgments and decrees of the Courts below and direct the learned trial Court to decide the suit of the respondent No.1 on merit after providing proper opportunity of defence to the petitioner.

AG/451/P                                                                                            Revision allowed.


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