PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

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

Case information

Citation
2025 CLC 684 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Court
Lahore High Court
Year
2025
Reporter
CLC
Parties
IJAZ AHMAD KHAN vs MUHAMMAD BOOTAY KHAN S
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 12

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

Judgment text as reported

IJAZ AHMAD KHAN VS MUHAMMAD BOOTAY KHAN S. 12(2)---Fraud and misrepresentation---Applicant claiming no knowledge of decree being assailed---An application under S. 12(2), C.P.C., 1908, filed before the Appellate/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---Record contradicted said stance of the petitioner as his name was mentioned as respondent No.3 and his address was the same in (said decided)appeal as he had mentioned in his application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. and also in the present civil revision---Appellate/District Court issued notice to petitioner/applicant (being respondent) by adopting due process and even after publication of advertisement in newspaper but he did not appear before the Appellate / District Court and was ultimately proceeded against ex-parte and thereafter( on the basis of statements of the contesting parties), the appeal was accepted by modifying the judgment and decree of the Trial Court---All the parties to the suit and appeal were closely related to each other and close relatives of petitioner--- Hence, it could not be believed that petitioner was not aware of the proceedings in suit and appeal---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.

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English