Business Recorder
ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has declared that when a party contests a suit but is unsuccessful in the proceedings, it has no right to file an application under section 12(2) of the CPC. A party that remains associated with the proceedings has every opportunity to present its case and rebut the opposing party’s arguments to protect its rights. However, any mistake or negligence on its part does not entitle it to file an application under section 12(2) of the CPC. A two-member bench, headed by Chief Justice Amin ud Din Khan, heard an appeal against the Lahore High Court (LHC) judgment. The bench upheld the LHC verdict, dismissing the appeal. The judgment said that in civil matters, once the trial court and the appellate court have reached a concurrent finding of fact based on the evidence, the High Court in its writ jurisdiction will not substitute its own conclusion for that of the lower forums simply because a different view is possible. The FCC maintained that, according to the Supreme Court judgment in Muhammad Hussain Munir v. Sikandar (PLD 1974 SC 139), the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 199 is limited to seeing whether the lower forum acted within its jurisdiction. An error of fact, however grave, cannot be corrected in writ jurisdiction unless it leads to a jurisdictional defect. The judgment noted that, admittedly, the power of attorney was prepared on 04.02.1980, whereas it was registered on 05.08.1981; the period between preparation and registration comes to nearly one and a half years, while in accordance with section 23, a document is required to be registered within six months from its preparation. However, Supreme Court of Pakistan, in its judgments, has repeatedly asserted that registered documents have strong evidentiary value and are legally protected. Since a document is registered after a process of verification, a presumption of truth is attached to it, and it will be assumed that the registered document is correct. It further observed that before the High Court, the order of dismissal of the application under section 12(2) CPC, as well as the revisional court, which confirmed the order of the Trial Court, were challenged under Article 199 of the Constitution. The appellant was required to show some jurisdictional defect to the High Court, committed by the fora below, but the appellant failed to do so; therefore, the writ petition was rightly dismissed. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent No.1, on 17.04.1985, filed a suit for declaration wherein he claimed that he is the owner of the suit property mentioned in the deed and challenged the registered power of attorney in favour of respondent No.2 as well as the transfer of the plot through a registered sale deed in favour of the present appellant. As per the record, respondent No.2, the alleged attorney, filed a written statement in the Court and contested it, thereafter he disappeared, whereas the appellant filed a written statement and contested the suit. After a full contest, recording of evidence, and a full-fledged trial, the suit was decreed vide judgment dated 17.04.1993. The appellant filed an appeal against the said judgment, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore. Civil Revision No.2427/1995 was filed in the High Court, which was dismissed. The judge of the High Court agreed with the concurrent findings recorded by the fora below and held that the same were supported by the evidence on record, which called for no interference; therefore, the petition was dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application under section 12(2) CPC mainly on the ground that the appellant came to know after the decision of the Civil Revision, that the plaintiff and his father had committed some fraud on the court to claim that the plaintiff was a minor at the time of preparation of the power of attorney. The application was summarily accepted by the High Court without recording of evidence, considering the facts narrated in the application under section 12(2) CPC to be correct vide judgment dated 27.03.2001.The said judgment was assailed before the Supreme Court through Civil Appeal No.2540/2001, which was accepted vide judgment dated 08.04.2003, and the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court. The Civil Judge, First Class, Lahore, vide order dated 11.11.2008, dismissed the application. The revision filed there against was also dismissed vide judgment dated 14.09.2009, as well as Writ Petition No.18211/2009 by the High Court vide judgment dated 14.05.2019, hence this appeal with the leave of the Court. Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Go to News Site