MUHAMMAD AQEEL vs Dr — 2026 CLC 961 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

MUHAMMAD AQEEL VS Dr. UZMA GHAZANFAR S.12(2)---Ingredients for invoking provisions of S.12(2) stated---The main ingredients for invoking provisions of S.12(2), C.P.C. are that it should be proved by tangible material that the party obtaining the order/judgment from the Trial Court played fraud by misrepresenting and concealing the material facts from the Court or that the said court lacked the jurisdiction to try the suit. Citation Name: 2026 CLC 961 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AQEEL VS Dr. UZMA GHAZANFAR Ss.12(2) & 96 & O.VII, R.11---Rejection of plaint---Remedy---Rejection of plaint constituting decree---Effect---Remedy of filing appeal against rejection of plaint---Scope---Order of rejection of plaint must be challenged by filing an appeal under S.96, C.P.C. because now it is well settled that although the order whereby an application filed under O.VII R.11, C.P.C. is dismissed is an interlocutory order; however, if such application is allowed and consequent thereupon the pliant is rejected, such order is a decree for all purposes, thus the same could be assailed by filing an appeal under S.96, C.P.C. Citation Name: 2026 CLC 961 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AQEEL VS Dr. UZMA GHAZANFAR Ss.12(2), 96 & O.VII, R.11---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), Ss.12, 42 & 54---Rejection of plaint---Subsequent recourse to S.12(2), C.P.C.---Legality---Rejection of plaint constituting a decree providing remedy of appeal against it---Scope---The petitioner filed a suit for declaration, specific performance, and injunction based on an alleged agreement to purchase property from respondent No.1, claiming part payment and readiness to perform---The plaint was rejected under O.VII R.11, C.P.C.---Instead of filing an appeal, the petitioner invoked S.12(2), C.P.C. alleging fraud and misrepresentation, which was allowed by the Trial Court but later was set aside in revision---The present constitutional petition challenged the revisional order---The core issue requiring determination before the High Court was "whether S.12(2), C.P.C. could be invoked to set aside an order rejecting a plaint (a decree) in the absence of proven fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of jurisdiction?"---Held: From perusal of the pleadings of petitioner/plaintiff, it seemed that not a single word was uttered therein in respect of any fraud and/or misrepresentation having been played by defendant/respondent No.1---The application filed under S.12(2) C.P.C. was not specifically confined to the plea of fraud and misrepresentation and/or lack of jurisdiction---The grounds taken in the application under S.12(2), C.P.C. by the petitioner/plaintiff were those which could have been taken by him by filing an appeal under S.96, C.P.C., which lay from every decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction---The petitioner instead of filing appeal under S.96, C.P.C., challenged the order of rejection of plaint by moving an application under S.12(2), C.P.C. which was not maintainable---Order of court below rejecting the plaint in the suit filed by the petitioner was maintained by the High Court---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD AQEEL vs Dr — 2026 CLC 961 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 CLC