2000SCMR296

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Irshad Hasan Khan and Sh I!a" #isar$ %%
Mrs &MI#& 'I'I throu(h )enera* &ttorne+,,,Petitioner
-ersus
#&SR.//&H and others,,,Respondents
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.361-L of 1999, decided on 24th Septemer, 1999.
!"n appeal from the #$d%ment dated 26-11-199& pa''ed ( Lahore )i%h Co$rt, Lahore,
in *rit Petition No.++, of 1996-.
0a1 Ci-i* Pro2edure Code 03 of 49051,,,
----S'.12!2-, 96!2-, 114, "../, 0.13 1 "./L2..---Con'tit$tion of Pa3i'tan !1943-,
Art.1&+!3----56 parte decree---0emedie'---*here civil '$it 7a' decreed e6 parte, vario$'
remedie' availale to a%%rieved per'on 7ere8 fir'tl(, filin% application $nder "../, 0.13,
C.P.C., 'econdl(, application $nder S.96!2-, C.P.C., thirdl(, petition for revie7 $nder
S.114 read 7ith ". /L2.., C.P.C. and fo$rthl(, petition $nder S.12!2-, C.P.C.--Petitioner
havin% e6ha$'ted remed( ( filin% an application $nder "../, 0.13, C.P.C., 'he co$ld not
e permitted to rea%itate 'ame i''$e ( mean' of fre'h petition $nder S.12!2-, C.P.C.
061 Ci-i* Pro2edure Code 03 of 49051,,,,,
----S.12!2----Proceedin%' on petition $nder S.12!2-, C.P.C.---*hile dealin% 7ith
alle%ation' $nder S.12!2-, C.P.C., it 7a' not inc$ment $pon Co$rt that it m$'t, in all
circ$m'tance', frame i''$e', record evidence and follo7 proced$re pre'cried for
deci'ion of the '$it.
Amiran 9ii v. :$hammad 0am;an 1999 SC:0 1334 ref.
:ir;a )afee;$r 0ehman, Advocate S$preme Co$rt 7ith <anvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-
0ecord for Petitioner.
Nemo for 0e'pondent'.
=ate of hearin%> 24th Septemer, 1999.
%.7)M8#9
IRSH&7 H&S&# KH&#$ %---<hi' petition for leave to appeal i' directed a%ain't the
#$d%ment dated 26-11-199&, pa''ed ( a learned Sin%le ?$d%e of the Lahore )i%h Co$rt
in *rit Petition No.++, of 1996.
2. 9rief fact' are that on 1+-11-1969, Ch. @aAir Bllah, predece''or-in-intere't of the
private re'pondent' herein, filed a '$it for po''e''ion thro$%h pre-emption in re'pect of
the land in di'p$te a%ain't the petitioner. <he '$it 7a' di'mi''ed for non-pro'ec$tion on
3-4-1941.
.t i' alle%ed that the ca'e 7a' re'tored on 9-4-1941, 7itho$t %ivin% notice to the
petitioner. Altho$%h on 2,-9-1941, the ca'e 7a' 'ent to the Co$rt of learned =i'trict
?$d%e for tran'fer to 'ome other Co$rt of competent #$ri'diction, in that, the learned Civil
?$d%e, 'ei;ed of the matter, had no #$ri'diction to tr( the '$it (et the 'ame 7a' f$rther
proce''ed ( the learned Civil ?$d%e.
3. 9e that a' it ma(, the petitioner a'ented her'elf and 7a' proceeded a%ain't e6 parte.
"n 3-1-1943, the petitioner moved an application $nder "rder ./, 0$le, 13, C.P.C., for
'ettin% a'ide the e6 parte decree, on the %ro$nd that e6 pane proceedin%' 7ere ta3en
a%ain't her on 11-1,-1942, 7itho$t 'ervice of notice $pon her. <he 'ame 7a' di'mi''ed.
<he appeal a' 7ell a' revi'ion filed ( the petitioner 7ere al'o di'mi''ed. <he 'ame 7a'
the fate of the petition for leave to appeal filed ( the petitioner !C.P. No. 126 of 1946-,
7hich 7a' di'mi''ed ( thi' Co$rt on 19-1-194&.
4. After e6ha$'tin% her remedie' a' afore'aid, the petitioner filed an application $nder
'ection 12!2-, C.P.C., for 'ettin% a'ide the e6 parte #$d%ment and decree, dated 6-12-
1942, inter alia, contendin% therein that the '$it earlier di'mi''ed for non-pro'ec$tion 7a'
7ron%l( re'tored on the alle%ed fal'e report of the proce''-'erver that the petitioner had
%one el'e7here. .t 7a' al'o pleaded in the application that on 2&-3-1942 a fal'e and
fictitio$' attendance of the e6-co$n'el Ch. Cafar$llah, Advocate, 7a' 'ho7n, altho$%h he
7a' not pre'ent efore the Co$rt. .nter alia, on the aove premi'e' it 7a' alle%ed in the
application $nder 'ection 12!2-, C.P.C., that the e6 parte decree 7a' otained ( the
re'pondent thro$%h fra$d and mi'repre'entation. Alon%7ith the aove application 7a'
filed 7ith an application for condonation of dela( $nder 'ection + of the Limitation Act.
<he learned Senior Civil ?$d%e ( order dated 1-3-19&9 re#ected the application ein% hit
( "rder 2.., r$le 11, C.P.C. "n revi'ion the learned Additional =i'trict ?$d%e remanded
the ca'e to the trial Co$rt for deci'ion afre'h. After recordin% evidence, in p$r'$ance of
the remand order, the application 7a' a%ain di'mi''ed ( the learned Senior Civil ?$d%e
( order, dated 19-1-1993. 0evi'ion petition filed a%ain't the 'aid order 7a' di'mi''ed (
the learned Additional =i'trict ?$d%e ( order, dated 21-9-199+. 9ein% a%%rieved, the
petitioner filed Con'tit$tional petition efore the )i%h Co$rt, 7hich 7a' di'mi''ed ( the
learned ?$d%e in Chamer' vide the imp$%ned #$d%ment. <he petitioner no7 'ee3' leave
to appeal.
+. :ir;a )afee;$r 0ehman, learned Advocate S$preme Co$rt for the petitioner ar%$ed
that the provi'ion' of "rder ./, 0$le 13, C.P.C. and 'ection 12!2-, C.P.C., are
independent remedie' and invocation of one doe' not e6cl$de the application of the other.
5laoratin% the plea, he '$mitted that the "rder ./, 0$le 13, C.P.C., contemplate'
'ettin% a'ide e6 parte decree 7herea' 'ection 12!2-, C.P.C., provide' a remed( for 'ettin%
a'ide the decree otained thro$%h fra$dDmi'repre'entation.
6. <he learned ?$d%e in Chamer' di'mi''ed the 7rit petition, inter alia, 7ith the
follo7in% o'ervation'>--
EAdmittedl( 'he had applied for 'ettin% a'ide e6 par'e decree $t that application 7a'
re#ected $p to the level of S$preme Co$rt and the 'ame controver'( co$ld not e re-
opened on the a'i' of application $nder 'ection 12!2-, C.P.C. <he learned Additional
=i'trict ?$d%e ha' ri%htl( noticed that the di'p$te co$ld not e rea%itated 7hen it 'tood
'ettled $p to the level of the S$preme Co$rt of Pa3i'tan.E
4. *here a '$it ha' een decreed e6 pane, vario$' remedie' are availale to an a%%rieved
per'on for redre'' of hi' %rievance. @ir'tl(, an application $nder "rder ./, 0$le 13,
C.P,C.8 'econdl(, an appeal from the e6 pane decree $nder 'ection 96 !2-, C.P.C.8 a
petition for revie7 $nder 'ection 114 read 7ith "rder /L2.. and a civil '$it on the
%ro$nd of fra$d and 7ant of #$ri'diction. <he latter remed( i' no7 '$'tit$ted ( 'ection
12!2-, C.P.C. )ere, the petitioner ha' e6ha$'ted her remedie' ( filin% an application
$nder "rder ./, 0$le 13, C.P.C. and, therefore, on the 'ame %ro$nd 'he cannot e
permitted to re-a%itate the 'ame i''$e ( mean' of a fre'h petition $nder 'ection 12!2-,
C.P.C.
&. 9e that a' it ma(, 7hile dealin% 7ith the alle%ation' $nder 'ection 12!2-, C.P.C., it i'
not inc$ment $pon the Co$rt that it m$'t, in all circ$m'tance', frame i''$e', record
evidence and follo7 the proced$re pre'cried for deci'ion of the '$it a' held if Amiran
9ii v. :$hammad 0am;an !1999 SC:0 1334-. .n the in'tant ca'e, 7e have %one
thro$%h the application $nder 'ection 12!2-, C.P.C., moved ( the petitioner and the
material availale on record. .n vie7 of the fact' and circ$m'tance' of the ca'e and the
#$dicial order' pa''ed $p to thi' Co$rt d$rin% the protracted liti%ation, the application
filed ( the petitioner $nder 'ection 12!2-, C.P.C., 7a' liale to e di'mi''ed 7itho$t
form$latin% i''$e' and recordin% evidence of the partie'.
9. 0e'$ltantl(, the petition fail' and i' here( di'mi''ed. Leave i' ref$'ed.
).9.<.DA-2,1DS Petition di'mi''ed