Citation Name: 2023 MLD 1911 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASTAM ASHRAF MANN vs MUHAMMAD MOHSIN

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 MLD 1911 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASTAM ASHRAF MANN VS MUHAMMAD MOHSIN S. 12(2) & O. VI, R. 4---Fraud, misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction---Application under S. 12(2), C.P.C.---Prejudice, absence of---Matter of partition of joint Khata, comprising around forty (40) co-sharers, remained pending before revenue hierarchy and was finally disposed off after one of the co-sharers invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Petitioner (Overseas Pakistani) moved an application under S. 12(2) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in said disposed of writ petition alleging that the name of his deceased father was arrayed instead of legal heirs (including the petitioner)---Validity---Respondents filed application for partition of joint khata eighteen (18) years ago, which (application) was though accepted after ten (10) years but due to pendency of matter before revenue hierarchy as well as the High Court, they (respondents) were still waiting to avail the benefits of their respective share---Petitioner had failed to point out any prejudice caused to him by the decision passed by the High Court---No case for interference had been made out in the judgment in question---Application under S. 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 MLD 1911 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASTAM ASHRAF MANN VS MUHAMMAD MOHSIN S. 12(2)---Fraud, misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction---Application under S. 12(2), C.P.C.---Jurisdiction of the Court---Scope---Court while determining an application under S. 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, did not enjoy the jurisdiction to sit as a Court of appeal, rather it had to restrict itself to the extent of allegation of fraud, misrepresentation or want of jurisdictional defects only without going into the reappraisal of evidence on merit of the case. Citation Name: 2023 MLD 1911 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASTAM ASHRAF MANN VS MUHAMMAD MOHSIN Ss. 17 & 18---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)---application under S. 12(2), C.P.C.---Fraud and misrepresentation, meanings of---Words "fraud", "misrepresentation" and "want of jurisdiction" have not been defined in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908,---It is appropriate to borrow plain meanings of 'fraud' and 'misrepresentation' from the dictionary as well as from Ss. 17 & 18 of the Contract act. Citation Name: 2023 MLD 1911 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASTAM ASHRAF MANN VS MUHAMMAD MOHSIN S. 12(2) & O. VI, R. 4---application under S. 12(2), C.P.C.---Mandatory ingredients (fraud and misrepresentation), absence of---allegations levelled in cursory manner without mentioning details---Matter of partition of joint Khata, comprising around forty (40) co-sharers, remained pending before revenue hierarchy and was finally disposed off after one of the co-sharers invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Petitioner (Overseas Pakistani) moved an application under S. 12(2) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, in said deposed of---Writ petition alleging that the name of his deceased father was impleaded instead of the legal heirs(including the petitioner)---Validity---Party (three in persons) who had initiated partition proceedings stated in their application for partition that they though had ownership of about 13% of joint Khata but they were not in possession of the same, instead other parties including the petitioner and his relatives (legal heirs of father of petitioner) were enjoying the possession/benefits of the property owned by them(original partition applicants)---Member Board of revenue had pointed out certain (three) parties who were in possession of land in excess of their share---Record revealed that although predecessor of the petitioner had died before initiation of partition proceedings, however, relevant inheritance mutation was entered in the revenue record three years after the application for partition had been filed, which meant that all the co-sharers of joint Khata, including predecessor of petitioner, as per revenue record, were arrayed as party in the application for partition---Petitioner had failed to bring on record that at the time of filing application for partition , the names of legal heirs of predecessor of the petitioner were available in revenue record---Under the partition proceedings, the respective shares and possession whereof was delivered to all owners including all the legal heirs of predecessor of the petitioner---Out of said legal heirs, only the petitioner had filed application under S. 12(2) of the C.P.C., 1908---Petitioner had merely raised oral allegation that land given to him in partition was of inferior quality but in said regard no documentary evidence had been brought on record---Petitioner had come up with his application under S. 12(2) of C.P.C. 1908, without disclosing therein the mandatory ingredients regarding the existence of fraud, misrepresentation and want of jurisdiction---Non-mentioning the said mandatory pre-requisites of the said provision dismantled the substratum of the application---Mere raising of cursory/illusory allegation of fraud and misrepresentation did not bring the application within ambit of S. 12(2) of C.P.C, 1908, rather such allegation should specifically have been mentioned in detail as required under O. VI, R. 4 of C.P.C., 1908---application under S. 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 MLD 1911 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASTAM ASHRAF MANN VS MUHAMMAD MOHSIN S. 12(2)---Fraud, misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction---Application under S. 12(2), C.P.C.--- Remedy, insertion of---Objective---Matter of partition of joint Khata, comprising around forty (40) co-sharers, remained pending before revenue hierarchy and was finally disposed off after one of the co-sharers invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Petitioner (Overseas Pakistani) moved an application under S. 12(2) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, in said disposed of Writ Petition alleging that the name of his deceased father was arrayed instead of legal heirs(including the petitioner)---Validity---Provision of S. 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, was inserted with the purpose to provide a short-cut remedy to the aggrieved party and also to save the party from the vagaries of further litigation by conferring a legal right to a party to challenge the final judgment, decree or order obtained through fraud , misrepresentation or without jurisdiction within the same proceedings/forum through an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C., 1908, instead of filing a separate independent civil suit---Second suit or second application on the same cause of action between the same parties was barred under S. 12(2), C.P.C., 1908, however, such a final judgment, decree or order could be challenged through an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C, 1908, having indispensible ingredients of fraud, misrepresentation and want of jurisdiction---Petitioner had failed to point out any ingredient falling under S. 12(2) of the C.P.C., 1908 in the impugned proceedings---Application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2023 MLD 1911 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASTAM ASHRAF MANN vs MUHAMMAD MOHSIN S — 2023 MLD 1911 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 MLD