IJAZ AHMAD KHAN vs MUHAMMAD BOOTAY KHAN S — 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 S. 12(2)---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Art. 181---Application under S. 12(2) C.P.C., 1908, filing of---Limitation---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---Stance 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---Pertinently, against the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court, one party (defendant) filed constitutional petition before the High Court wherein the petitioner was also impleaded as one of the respondents; notice was issued by the High Court which was personally served through process server to the petitioner after five months of passing of decree by District Court (notice-serving date) but the petitioner never appeared before the High/Court; said constitutional petition was later dismissed---Application under S. 12(2), C.P.C., was filed after five years of said notice-serving date to the petitioner which was dismissed being barred by limitation because period of limitation to file an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. was three years from the date of knowledge of previous litigation, and the crucial starting point for the period of limitation would be when the right to apply accrued to the aggrieved applicant, which in case of an application under S. 12(2), of the C.P.C., would be the date when the impugned decision based on fraud and concealment was passed---In case the aggrieved person had, by means of fraud, been kept away from the knowledge of decision of the Court, he may then seek the extension of the commencing point of the period of limitation of three years from the date of decision under Art. 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908---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 S — 2025 CLC 684 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC