Citation Name: 2023 CLC 1750 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RASHID KHAN vs MUHAMMAD WAJAH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2023 CLC 1750 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RASHID KHAN VS MUHAMMAD WAJAHAT AMEER KHAN S.5, Sched.---Execution of decree for maintenance allowance---Transfer of Property in husband's name---Cancellation of---Sham Transaction---Meaning---Transaction whereby property was sold or transferred by the husband judgment debtor to his close relatives in order to avoid payment of maintenance allowance against decree passed in favour of his wife and children, was a sham transaction and the said transaction and any superstructure built on the same could not be sustained---Where basic transaction was declared as sham superstructure built on the same was also not sustainable and should collapse. Citation Name: 2023 CLC 1750 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RASHID KHAN VS MUHAMMAD WAJAHAT AMEER KHAN S.12(2)---Family Court Act (XXXV of 1964), S.5, Sched.---Application under S.12(2) of the C.P.C.---Maintainability---Petitioner claimed to be owner in possession of the property in question by virtue of registered gift deed executed in petitioner favour by his mother/respondent and mutation of the same was also sanctioned by reveune authorities---Petitioner claimed that he had constructed "Khothi" on the property prior to its transfer when it was joint khata, however, after execution of gift deed whole ownership of property vested with petitioner and petitioner was residing there as absolute owner with his family members---Property in question was not the subject matter of the suit for maintenance allowance decreed in favour of respondents and was transferred in favour of petitioner's mother/respondent prior to announcement of judgment/decree of the suit for the recovery of maintenance allowance, hence, executing court rightly dismissed the application for setting aside the transfer, which order had been set aside as per claim of petitioner without appreciating real controversy in issue by not impleading him as party through the impugned order against which application under S.12(2) of the C.P.C had been dismissed without appreciating that petitioner had not been impleaded as party----Held, that grounds raised by petitioner were not sufficient for setting aside the impugned order through application under S.12(2) of the C.P.C because for that purpose the applicant in addition to above mentioned grounds including ground of not being impleaded as a party was also required to establish that petitioner was not impleaded fraudulently, by misrepresentation or Court lacked jurisdiction in the matter as provided under S. 12(2) of the C.P.C which had not been done in the present case---No fraud or misrepresentation on behalf of the respondent had been pointed out from the record of case in hand, therefore, there was no reason for High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under S.12(2) of the C.P.C to set aside the impugned orders and the application merited to be dismissed and had rightly been dismissed by Appellant Court---Petitioner had failed to point out any illegality or jurisdictional defect in the orders passed by the Appellant Court---Civil revision being devoid of merit was dismissed.

Citation Name: 2023 CLC 1750 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RASHID KHAN vs MUHAMMAD WAJAHAT AMEER KHAN S — 2023 CLC 1750 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 CLC