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
2000 S C M R 1321 -Dismissal From Service---Regular Inquiry Not Held---Service Tribunal Had Rightly Concluded That Dismissal of Civil Servant From Service and Subsequent Reduction in Punishment Were Violative of Dictum
1996 S C M R 1185 - Rule of Good Governance Demand That The Benefit of Such Judgment by Service Tribunal-Supreme Court Be Extended To Other Civil Servants Who May Not Be Parties To The Litigation
1998 P L C CS 221 - Constitutional Petition - Employee of Statutory Body - Termination of Service Without Show-Cause Notice and Without Affording Opportunity of Being Heard
1996 P L C CS 433 - Statutory Rules National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Services Rules Were First Promulgated in Year 1973 and Subsequently in Year 1980 Rules of 1980
1996 S C M 8413 - IRREGULAR Appointment Service Tribunal Having Re Instated Civil Servant Could Not Be Deemed To Have Committed Any Illegality or Irregularity
Garda, Mahon Tribunal Denis O Brien, Politicians and Multinationals and Billionaires Like Obrien and The Enormous Corruption by Europe in Public Tax Fraud