In 12/2 application issue framing is not compulsory .

**درخواست:**

سبیر علی نے سی پی سی کی دفعہ 12(2) کے تحت ایک درخواست دائر کی تھی جس میں انہوں نے رضامندی کے فیصلے اور حکم کو کالعدم قرار دینے کی درخواست کی۔ سبیر علی نے دعویٰ کیا کہ انہیں عدالت میں پیش نہیں کیا گیا اور نہ ہی کوئی سمجھوتہ کیا گیا تھا۔ ان کا کہنا تھا کہ رضامندی کا فیصلہ دھوکہ دہی، جعلسازی، اور غلط بیانی کا نتیجہ تھا۔

**ریسپانڈنٹ کا موقف:**

نجی فریقین (جو کہ Aurangzeb وغیرہ تھے) نے سبیر علی کی درخواست کی مخالفت کی۔ انہوں نے کہا کہ سبیر علی اور ان کے وکیل نے 4 ستمبر 2012 کو عدالت میں آ کر سمجھوتے کی تصدیق کی تھی۔ ان کا کہنا تھا کہ سبیر علی کی درخواست میں پیش کردہ الزامات کی کوئی ٹھوس بنیاد نہیں تھی، اور اس میں کوئی مواد نہیں تھا جو دھوکہ دہی یا جعلسازی ثابت کرے۔

**آرڈر:**

1. **ٹرائل کورٹ کا آرڈر (21 جون 2013):** ٹرائل کورٹ نے سبیر علی کی درخواست کو مسترد کر دیا، کیونکہ درخواست میں کوئی ٹھوس ثبوت نہیں پیش کیے گئے اور الزام کی تصدیق نہیں کی گئی۔

2. **ایڈیشنل ڈسٹرکٹ جج کا آرڈر (11 دسمبر 2013):** ایڈیشنل ڈسٹرکٹ جج نے سبیر علی کی اپیل کو بھی مسترد کر دیا، یہ کہتے ہوئے کہ ٹرائل کورٹ نے صحیح طور پر کیس کا جائزہ لیا اور کسی مزید تحقیق کی ضرورت نہیں سمجھی۔

3. **ہائی کورٹ کا آرڈر:** لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے بھی سبیر علی کی writ petition کو مسترد کر دیا، یہ فیصلہ دیتے ہوئے کہ دونوں عدالتوں نے درست طریقے سے کیس کا جائزہ لیا اور سبیر علی کی درخواست میں کوئی قانونی یا فکری خرابی نہیں تھی۔

لاہور ہائی کورٹ کے فیصلے میں درج ریمارکس:

1. **دھوکہ دہی اور جعلسازی کے الزامات:** عدالت نے سبیر علی کے دھوکہ دہی اور جعلسازی کے الزامات کو مسترد کیا۔ عدالت نے کہا کہ درخواست گزار نے اپنے الزامات کو ثابت کرنے کے لیے کوئی ٹھوس مواد پیش نہیں کیا۔ اس کے علاوہ، سبیر علی نے اپنے وکیل کی تصدیق کو بھی چیلنج نہیں کیا کہ انہوں نے انہیں عدالت میں شناخت کیا تھا۔

2. **تحقیقی کارروائی کا فقدان:** عدالت نے نوٹ کیا کہ سبیر علی کی درخواست میں یہ وضاحت نہیں تھی کہ دھوکہ دہی یا جعلسازی کے الزامات کی تفصیلات کیا ہیں۔ عدالت نے کہا کہ ٹرائل کورٹ نے مناسب طور پر کیس کا جائزہ لیا اور کوئی اضافی تحقیق کرنے کی ضرورت نہیں سمجھی، کیونکہ الزامات میں کوئی ٹھوس بنیاد نہیں تھی۔

3. **عدالتی فیصلے کی درستگی:** عدالت نے کہا کہ سبیر علی کے کیس میں ٹرائل کورٹ اور ایڈیشنل ڈسٹرکٹ جج کے فیصلے درست اور قانونی تھے۔ عدالت نے ان فیصلوں کو غیر متنازع اور قانونی قرار دیا اور کوئی غیر قانونی یا غلط اقدام نہیں پایا۔

4. **مسائل فریم کرنے کی ضرورت:** عدالت نے وضاحت کی کہ ٹرائل کورٹ کو ہر کیس میں مسائل فریم کرنا ضروری نہیں ہے۔ عدالت نے یہ بھی کہا کہ اگر کوئی کیس مزید تحقیقات کی متقاضی ہو، تو ٹرائل کورٹ اس کے مطابق فیصلہ کر سکتی ہے، لیکن موجودہ کیس میں کوئی ایسی ضرورت محسوس نہیں ہوئی۔

یہ ریمارکس اس بات پر مبنی تھے کہ سبیر علی نے اپنے الزامات کو ثابت کرنے میں ناکامی کا سامنا کیا، اور ٹرائل کورٹ اور ایڈیشنل ڈسٹرکٹ جج نے اپنے فیصلے میں کوئی قانونی غلطی نہیں کی۔

**درخواست:**

**ریسپانڈنٹ کا موقف:**

**آرڈر:**

Form No: HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, BAHAWALPUR BENCH,

BAHAWALPUR

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

W.P.No.268-2014/BWP.

Sabir Ali

Versus

Addl. District Judge etc.

S. No. of

order/

Proceeding

Date of order/

Proceeding

Order with signature of Judge, and that of

parties or counsel, where necessary

16.01.2014.Mr.Ghazanfer Ali Khan, Advocate.

The instant Writ Petition No.268 of 2014 has

been filed by the present petitioner against the order

dated 11.12.2013 passed by Addl. District Judge,

Bahawalnagar who dismissed the civil revision filed

by the present petitioner and upheld the order dated

21.06.2013 of Civil Judge Ist Class, Bahawalnagar

dismissing the application under section 12(2) of

CPC filed by the present petitioner for setting aside

the consent judgment and decree dated 24.01.2013

in the suit for Specific Performance of agreement to

sell titled “Aurangzeb etc vs. Sabir Ali, detail of which

is well mentioned in head note of the suit.

Precise facts of the instant matter are that the

present petitioner Sabir Ali filed an application under

section 12(2) of CPC before the trial Court for setting

aside the consent judgment and decree dated

24.01.2013 passed in civil suit for Specific

Performance of agreement to sell titled “Aurangzeb

etc vs Sabir Ali” with the allegation that he neither

appeared before the trial Court on 04.09.2012 nor

made any statement of compromise and the judgment

and decree dated 24.01.2013 was a result of fraud,

forgery and misrepresentation as someone else has

been produced who recorded his statement of

compromise illegally by respondent.

The application under section 12(2) CPC was

contested by the private respondents of the instant

writ petition and after hearing the arguments,

learned trial Court dismissed the application of the

present petitioner on 21.06.2013.

Feeling aggrieved the present petitioner filed a

civil revision before the District Judge, Bahawalnagar

which was entrusted to Mr. Shamshad Ali Rana,

Addl. District Judge, Bahawalnagar who after

hearing both the parties, dismissed the same on

11.12.2013, hence this writ petition before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended

that both the impugned orders passed by Courts

below are against law and facts on the file and have

been passed in surmises and conjunctures. It is

contended that both the Courts below did not adopt

the proper legal procedure and disposed of the

application of the petitioner without inquiry and

without recording of the evidence. It is further

contended that in the instant case, learned trial

Court has not framed any issue for deciding the

application of the petitioner despite of the fact that

there were allegations in the application regarding

misrepresentation, and of fraud of obtaining

impugned consent judgment and decree dated

24.01.2013. He submitted that the petitioner neither

appeared before any Court nor he got recorded any

statement of compromise and judgment and decree

dated 24.01.2013 is outcome of fraud, impersonation

and misrepresentation which is liable to be set aside.

It is contended that the petitioner also moved an

application during the pendency of revision petition

before the Court of learned Addl. District Judge,

Bahawalnagar for referring the signature and the

thumb impression of the petitioner to the Hand

Writing Experts for comparison. Learned counsel for

the petitioner has focused mainly on the point that

after moving application under section 12(2) of CPC,

the trial Court was duty bound to frame the issues

and call the evidence of the parties and disposal of

the application under section 12(2) of CPC without

recording evidence is totally illegal and both the

Courts below have committed illegality in this

respect. Both the orders, thus, are liable to be set

aside.

I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and perused the record.

Aurangzeb etc private respondents in the

instant writ petition filed a suit for specific

performance of agreement to sell pertaining to land

measuring 59 kanals on 20.06.2012 against the

present petitioner(Sabir Ali) in trial Court detail of

which is mentioned in the head-note of the suit and

during the pendency of the suit petitioner alongwith

his counsel Rao Muhammad Akmal Taher Advocate

appeared before the trial Court on 04.09.2012 and

made a statement of compromise which is

reproduced as under:

The present petitioner was identified by his

counsel Rao Muhammad Akmal Taher Advocate and

learned trial Court obtained thumb impression as

well as signatures of the petitioner on the margin of

the order sheet and also obtained signatures of his

learned counsel Rao Muhammad Akmal Taher

Advocate as identifier of the petitioner and the suit of

the private respondents of the instant writ petition

was thereafter decreed on 24.01.2013. I have

perused the application under section 12(2) CPC

moved by the present petitioner minutely where the

present petitioner has not stated anywhere that Rao

Muhammad Akmal Taher Advocate has not been

engaged by him as his counsel in the suit titled

Aurangzeb etc vs Sabir Ali and he had not identified

him on 04.09.2012 while making the statement of

compromise before the trial Court in above stated suit

and likewise there is no affidavit of Rao Muhammad

Akmal Taher Advocate annexed with the application

stating therein that he did not identify the

petitioner(Sabir Ali) being defendant at the time of

recording statement of compromise on 04.09.2012

before the trial Court in above stated suit and no

allegation against learned counsel Rao Muhammad

W.P.No.268/2014

Akmal Taher Advocate has been leveled by the

present petitioner in his application that he wrongly

identified him on 04.09.2012 before the trial Court in

said suit while making statement of compromise. As

far as the allegation that the compromise decree was

obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, the

petitioner failed to substantiate the same as no

particulars or details thereof have been given in his

application under section 12(2) of CPC while

challenging judicial proceedings

whereas

presumption of truth is attached to that proceedings

and mere application not supported by any material

would not invariably warrant inquiry or investigation

in each case. It is for the trial Court to see whether

the facts and circumstances of the case require

further probe into the allegations or not. Where the

Court finds that further inquiry is required, it would

frame issues and record evidence of the parties and if

it is of the opinion that no inquiry is required, it

dispense with the same and can proceed further to

decide the matter so it is also not incumbent on the

trial Court to frame issues in each and every case,

but it depends upon the facts and circumstances of

each case. The petitioner himself admitted in his

statement of compromise recorded by the trial Court

on 04.09.2012 in presence of his counsel that he had

received Rs.16,20,000/- out of the Court and

received Rs.6,30,000/- in the Court from the plaintiffs

and has no objection for decreeing the suit of the

plaintiff, so the consent decree did not suffer from

fraud, misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction and

therefore, the same was not amenable to challenge

under section 12(2) of CPC as none of the ingredients

for challenging the validity of decree as contemplated

in section 12(2) of CPC was available to the

petitioner. Both the Courts below have exhaustively

dealt with each and every point alleged before them

and orders of the Courts below are neither perverse

nor illegal. Reliance is placed on case titled

W.P.No.268/2014

“Messrs DADABHOY CEMENT INDUSTRIES LTD,

and 6 others

versus

NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE

CORPORATION, KARACHI”(PLD 2002 Supreme

Court 500).”

For the foregoing reasons, the instant writ

petition has no merits and the same is dismissed in

Limine.

(Sadaqat Ali Khan)

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.