Citation Name: 2023 YLR 355 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case AHMAD BAKHSH vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUD

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 YLR 355 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case AHMAD BAKHSH VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SARGODHA S.12(2)---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S.9---Suit for possession---Grounds of fraud, misrepresentation and lack of jurisdiction could be agitated under S.12(2), C.P.C. and no ground beyond the same could be allowed---In the present case suit for possession under S.9 of the Specific Relief act, 1877, was filed by plaintiffs against respondents out of which two respondents were real sons of the petitioner (applicant under S.12(2), C.P.C.)---Suit was dismissed by Trial Court---Respondents filed appeal before appellate Court, which reversed the decision of the Trial Court and decreed the suit---Petitioner filed an application before appellate Court under S.12(2), C.P.C. on the ground that petitioner had not been impleaded as a party in the suit, which application was dismissed by appellate Court---Validity--- Petitioner had throughout been aware of the proceedings initiated against his real sons, with whom petitioner was residing and petitioner had been indolent in pursuing the matter despite the fact that petitioner's real son contested the same and petitioner could have filed an application for being impleaded as a party, if petitioner so desired---Mere claim of petitioner based on ownership of the property and not being impleaded as a party in the given circumstances of the case was not sufficient to set aside order of the appellate Court on the grounds raised by petitioner as for the purpose of application under S.12(2), C.P.C, petitioner had to show that he was not impleaded as a party through fraud or misrepresentation or the court lacked jurisdiction to decide the matter, which was lacking in the present case---Counsel for the petitioner had tried to argue that the case of respondents was not made out even on merits and decree was liable to be set aside---Such argument might be a ground to challenge impugned order before higher forum but the same could not be made basis for setting aside a decree by filing an application under S.12(2), C.P.C., wherein only grounds of fraud, misrepresentation and absence of jurisdiction could be agitated and no ground beyond the same could be allowed---Other grounds raised by petitioner could be raised through other proceedings but not through application under S. 12(2), C.P.C.--- Title of petitioner to the suit property as claimed by petitioner did not require him to be impleaded as party to suit under S.9 of the Specific Relief act, 1877 as the suit was required to be filed against persons who had dispossessed where as no such ground was raised by petitioner and it was also not the claim of the petitioner that the decree was obtained by plaintiff in collusion with petitioner's sons to deprive him of the possession of the property---Non impleading of petitioner as party, in the suit, for recovery of possession could not be held to be based on fraud and misrepresentation---Petitioner had also not been rendered remediless as he still had remedy of filing a suit for possession on the basis of title available to him, if he could establish the same---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 355 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case AHMAD BAKHSH vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SARGODHA S — 2023 YLR 355 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR