Hayat Khan vs Kifayat S — 2025 MLD 1394 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

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

Hayat Khan VS Kifayat S.12(2)---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Art.181---Challenging the validity of judgment or order on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation by filing an application under S.12(2) CPC---Maintainability---Essential requirements and necessary ingredients---Consent/compromise decree challenged after a decade---No instance of fraud, misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction pleaded in the application under S.12(2) C.P.C---Effect---Brief facts of the case were that the a suit for declaration was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs on 29.06.2001 challenging a mutation which was allegedly attested on 19.11.1991, on the basis of fraud---During the pendency of that suit, a compromise deed dated 25.02.2001 was executed, resulting in the suit's withdrawal---Subsequently, multiple applications under S.12(2) C.P.C. were filed by different respondents, challenging the withdrawal based on fraud and misrepresentation which were dismissed by the civil court, including the one dismissed on 22.01.2014---However, the respondents'/defendants' revision petition was allowed by the District Court, remanding the case for fresh adjudication after recording pro and contra evidence---The petitioners/plaintiffs contended that the judgment dated of the revisional court was illegal and void ab initio and sought restoration of the 22.01.2014 decision whereby respondents' application under S.12(2) was dismissed---Held: Application under S.12(2) C.P.C. did not contain specific details about the fraud that might have been committed in the proceedings in civil suit which including filing of application for withdrawal, recording of statement of attorney and exhibiting documents of compromise therein---In absence of such details in respect of alleged fraud in the proceedings of the court, the application under S.12(2) C.P.C. was not at all maintainable---There was no explanation as to why the applicants remained silent for more than a decade for challenging the order of withdrawal of suit dated 02.03.2001 on 14.01.2013---The application under S.12(2) C.P.C. was also barred by law of limitation specifically Art.181 of Schedule-I of Limitation Act, 1908---Impugned order of revisional court was set aside and application of respondent Nos.1 to 8 filed under S.12(2) C.P.C. stood dismissed---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1394 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Hayat Khan VS Kifayat S.12(2)---application under S.12(2) of C.P.C---Essential requirements and necessary ingredients---Not mentioning the specific details of fraud or misrepresentation---Effect---While moving an application under S.12(2) C.P.C. the basis of fraud or misrepresentation has to be specifically described along with necessary details in the very application under S.12(2) C.P.C.---Vague assertion on crucial facts would not be of any legal avail as a mere bold assertion of fraud or concealment would not legally suffice---Moreover, when a person raises a ground of fraud or concealment to allege his claim or defend his stance the same has to be specifically pleaded with clear particulars, otherwise mere allegation not supported by any material would not invariably warrant inquiry of investigation in each case.

Hayat Khan vs Kifayat S — 2025 MLD 1394 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD