2016 M L D 1203


2016 M L D 1203

[Peshawar]

Before Abdul Latif Khan, J

IRFAN JAMEEL ESHAI---Petitioner

Versus

Haji BANARAS KHAN and others---Respondents

C.R. No.349-A of 2014, decided on 30th March, 2015.

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----S.12(2)---Application under S.12(2), C.P.C.---Scope---Defendant in a civil suit had obtained a consent decree and applied for arraying himself as party to the suit filed by plaintiff---Suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff---Plaintiff filed application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. to set aside consent decree obtained by defendant---Validity---Application under S. 12(2) of C.P.C. filed by plaintiff was misconceived as there was no need to file such application for the reason that same cause had been decided between same parties by competent court---If decree passed in favour of plaintiff remained in field, there was nothing to be adjudicated in subsequent proceedings by court---Plaintiff could not file a suit or an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C., when parties were same and subject matter almost same as that would amount to double jeopardy.

            Date of hearing: 30th March, 2015.

JUDGMENT

            ABDUL LATIF KHAN, J.---Irfan Jamil Eshai, petitioner, filed the instant revision petition against the judgment and order dated 11.10.2014, passed by the learned Civil Judge-V Abbottabad, whereby the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2010 passed in Suit No.54/1 was set aside and the application filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 12(2), C.P.C. was accepted.

2.         The brief and essential facts leading to the present revision petition are that the respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. in the Court of learned Civil Judge-V, Abbottabad to the effect that the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2010, passed in favour of the present petitioner, in civil Suit No.54/1 of 2010 is based on fraud and mis-representation with the Court in obtaining the consent decree without impleading the present respondent No.1 as party to the said suit despite of the fact that at that time another civil suit titled Haji Banaras Khan v. Mst Sakeena Begum and others was pending adjudication between the parties in the Court of Civil Judge-VI, Abbottabad.

3.         Respondents were summoned. They appeared and submitted their reply. From divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed six issues. After framing of issues the parties produced their pro and contra evidence and after hearing of learned counsel for the parties the learned trial Court accepted the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. and the decree dated 21.10.2010 was set aside and the civil suit was restored.

4.         I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record with their assistance.

5.         Perusal of the record reveals that respondent No.1/applicant moved an application under Section 12(2), C.P.C., whereby consent decree passed on 21.10.2010 in favour of the present petitioner against Mst. Rasheeda Begum and others, was challenged alleging therein, that the decree has been passed on the basis of fraud and mis-representation. It is evident from the record that the petitioner based his claim on unregistered document dated 29.09.1999 and filed a suit against Mst. Rashida Begum etc., who have given cognovit and consent decree was passed. Admittedly, a suit filed by respondents against predecessor of the present petitioner in the year 1990, regarding almost the same property, which has been decreed in their favour on 05.01.2012. It is pertinent to mention here that after obtaining the consent decree, the petitioner applied to be arrayed as party in Suit No.230/1, which was allowed and present petitioner was arrayed as defendant to the suit filed by the respondents on the basis of consent decree, which means that the consent decree has became the subject matter of the Suit No.230/1 impliedly if not expressly and the present respondent/plaintiff of Suit No.230/1 was supposed to challenge the consent decree passed in the year 2010 and on the basis of which the present petitioner was arrayed as party to the suit but they could not challenge the same and instead questioned it through a separate application under Section 12(2), C.P.C., which is the subject matter of the instant petition.

6.         The moot point in this case would be that decree has been granted in favour of the present respondent in Suit No.230/1 on 05.1.2012 against petitioner and their vendors. There was no need to file application under Section 12(2), C.P.C., against consent decree passed in favour of petitioner for the reason that same cause has been decided between the same parties by the competent Court and as such application is misconceived. The trial Court has not decided the lis with conscious and application of independent mind by ignoring this vital aspect of the case as the respondent/plaintiff in Suit No.230/1 has questioned the title of the petitioner and their vendor regarding almost the same property in the suit and cannot file application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. at the same time against the consent decree passed in favour of the petitioner in the year 2010. It is also pertinent to mention here that the appeal has been filed by the present petitioner against the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff in Suit No.230/1 and in case the application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. is allowed, there is every possibility of contradictory findings by both the Courts. Needless to mention that agreement between the parties and consent decree has no binding effect on the present respondent and as such they could not file suit as well as application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. simultaneously when the parties are the same, subject matter almost the same and would amount to double jeopardy. If decree passed in favour of respondent remained intact there remains nothing to be adjudicated in subsequent proceedings by the Court in the instant proceedings. The findings arrived at by the lower Court on acceptance of application under section 12(2), C.P.C. is in disregard of law and are the result of misreading and non-reading of the available record, law besides.

7.         For the aforesaid reasons, without touching merit of the case, lest it prejudice the case of either side, the present revision petition is allowed, set aside the impugned orders/judgments of both the Courts below and dismissed the application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. being not maintainable.

RR/230/P                                                                                             Petition 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