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

BASHIR AHMAD vs SHAUKAT ALI S — 2026 CLC 201 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Citation
2026 CLC 201 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Court
Lahore High Court
Year
2026
Reporter
CLC
Parties
BASHIR AHMAD vs SHAUKAT ALI S
Subject matter
Civil
Provisions referred to
S. 12; S. 41; S. 52; Property Act (IV of 1882); Property Act

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

BASHIR AHMAD VS SHAUKAT ALI S.12(2)---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Ss.41 & 52---Application under S.12(2) C.P.C., filing of---Plea of fraud and misrepresentation---Maintainability of application filed under S.12(2), C.P.C. by a non-party---Summary dismissal of the application---Circumstances where framing of issues and recording evidence are necessary---Doctrine of lis pendens, applicability of---Effect of collusive compromise on applicability of lis pendens principle---Scope---Where decree procured through fraud and collusion lis pendens is not applicable---Exception to lis pendens doctrine---Misuse of consent decree---Applicability of S.41 Transfer of Property Act, 1882---Right of bona fide purchaser---Scope---The cardinal issue that engaged the consideration of the High Court was as to "whether an application under S.12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was maintainable by a bona fide purchaser of property, who was not a party to the original suit, against aconsent decree allegedly obtained through collusion or fraud, and whether summary dismissal of such application without framing issues and recording evidence was sustainable in law"---Petitioner filed application under S.12(2), C.P.C. with the grievance that he had purchased 4-kanal 7.5 marla land from a person namely 'MR' and mutation was also sanctioned in his favour---'MR' had already obtained a declaratory decree dated 09.07.2014 against a person namely 'AQ'---'MR' then appeared in appeal filed by 'AQ' challenging that very declaratory decree and got recorded his statement before the District Court to the effect that he had no objection to set-aside the decree and suit be dismissed as withdrawn upon which the District Court on the same day dismissed the suit on 20.10.2014---On 11.12.2014 the application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. was filed by the petitioner which was summarily dismissed by the District Court without framing issues and recording evidence on the grounds that rule of lis pendens was applicable to the case and no fraud had been committed with court which was essential to maintain an application under S.12(2), C.P.C.---Held: Under settled law a genuine compromise was anormal conduct of parties but a compromise entered into by collusion or fraud excludes the application of S. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882---The application of doctrine of lis pendens was circumscribed by certain conditions---One of the well recognized exceptions was when the provisions of S. 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 were squarely applicable to the case---If the fraud was inter se the parties and no fraud with the Court was committed or no misrepresentation was made before the court, the provisions of S.12(2) of the C.P.C. would not be applicable, in absence of jurisdictional defect---However, the position was different when consent decree was obtained to have the premium of the fraud---When no case of fraud or misrepresentation or jurisdiction was made out and it was apparent from the record that application under S. 12(2) of the C.P.C. was filed just to derail the proceedings, or it was to cause delay in execution; such attempt required summary dismissal---Oral and / or written submissions were sufficient when no complicated question was involved---Nevertheless, when facts required determination, recording evidence and question being a mixed question of law and facts, would need proper determination---The court below fell in error while refusing to frame issues and recording evidence---The civil revision was allowed and while setting aside the impugned judgment, the case was remanded to the District Court concerned for decision on the application after framing issues and providing opportunity to produce evidence.

Other judgments reported in 2026 CLC

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