IJAZ AHMAD KHAN vs MUHAMMAD BOOTAY KHAN art — 2025 CLC 684 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

IJAZ AHMAD KHAN VS MUHAMMAD BOOTAY KHAN art. 129(e)---Constitution of Pakistan, art. 150---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)---Limitation act ( IX of 1908), First Sched., art. 181---application under S. 12(2) C.P.C., 1908, filing of---Fraud and mis-representation---Judicial proceedings, authenticity of---an application under S. 12(2) C.P.C., 1908, filed before the District Court by a respondent (in decided appeal) was dismissed, against which dismissal revision was filed---Plea of the petitioner (applicant under S. 12(2) C.P.C.) was that he had no knowledge about the pendency of appeal as no notice/summon was served to him and neither he appeared before the appellate/District Court nor appointed any counsel, hence, order and decree (passed in appeal) was result of fraud and mis-representation---Validity---applicant/petitioner had alleged fraud and representation against the respondents without any solid proof---Mere allegation, not supported by any material, would not invariably warrant inquiry or investigation---Said facts negated the claim/ground as written in application for setting aside the impugned judgment---Therefore, any plea being raised by the petitioner/applicant at present/later stage had no force---Petitioner/applicant failed to satisfy the judicial conscious of the Court as presumption of truth was attached to the record of the Court under art. 129(e) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and art. 150 of the Constitution---authenticity of the judicial record cannot be doubted without any solid proof and only on the oral arguments of the counsel/applicant/party---Petitioner/applicant had not been able to point out any plausible ground due to which he was seeking to set aside the impugned order, hence, he was not entitled to any relief---Once the dispute is settled, the same cannot be allowed to be set at naught through a malafide act of the aggrieved party---Thus, the District Judge had rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner after properly discussing in detail the un-rebuttable facts of the case---No infirmity, legal or factual, had been pointed out in the impugned order---Revision was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

IJAZ AHMAD KHAN vs MUHAMMAD BOOTAY KHAN art — 2025 CLC 684 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC