section12(2)CPC, Cancellation of degree, order or jugement

RESEACH WORK ON SECTION 12(2) C.P.C 1908:

REMEDY FOR A PERSON AGGRIEVED BY ANY JUDGEMENT ORDER OR DECREE TAKEN THROUGH FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION:

Section 12 (2) CPC
Where a person challenges the validity of a judgment, decree or order on plea of fraud, misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction, he shall seek his remedy by making an application to the Court which passed the final judgment, decree or order and not by a separate Suit.

Fraud and forgery must be proved by producing unimpeachable impartial and confidence inspiring evidence much less near allegations cannot take proof required under the law [2011 CLC 355]

False promise does not fall within the Ambit of section 12 to CPC
[2011 MLD 1956]

Application under section 12(2) CPC can only be considered if questioned involved in the same is of fraud misrepresentation or want of Jurisdiction. person whose right are affected by a judgement decree, can also challange the degree through an application .
Court can convert and irregular proceedings into a regular one and a suit can be converted into an application under section 12(2) CPC
[PLD 2011 Peshawar 224]

Entire case was not examined in its correct perspective which resulted in grave miscarriage of justice : [1994 SCMR 782]

Judgment had been obtained on basis of a forged document
Leave to appeal was granted to examine the scope of S.12 (2) CPC, with a view to ascertain whether it included the grounds that a judgment had been obtained on basis of a forged document. [1993 SCMR [p. 712] A]

FRAUD:
Fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings and no party should be allowed to take advantage of his fraud.
[1993 SCMR [p. 714] ]

Fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings. 1994 SCMR [p. 790] F.
S.12(2)---Where a decree was allegedly obtained on the forged certified copy of entry made in a Register of Death kept under the Births, Death and Marriage Registration Act 1886, the same would amount to fraud and application under S12(2) CPC, would be competent on basis thereof.
[1993 SCMR [p. 715] D.]

In the circumstances and for going reasons this appeal is allowed, the impugned judgments are set aside. The Application U/S. 12(2) CPC shall stand remanded to the District Judgment for entrustment to the appropriate Court for decision in accordance with law.
[1993 SCMR [p. 715] D.]

Serious allegation of fraud, collusion and misrepresentation:
[2006 SCMR 1530]

S.12(2)---Decree passed without recording evidence of parties---Application for setting aside such decree on grounds of fraud, collusion and misrepresentation---Dismissal of application summarily by Trial Court was upheld in revision and by High Court in constitution petition---Validity---Disposal of application in such manner was not justified in view of serious allegation leveled therein----Trial Court aught to have framed issues and recorded evidence of parties, particularly when decree had also been passed without recording evidence of parties----Inquiry directed by Supreme Court accepted appeal set aside impugned judgment of High Court and Courts below directing that such application would be deemed to be pending before Trial Court for its decision within specified time after framing issues and recording evidence of parties.
[2006 SCMR 1530-1532 A & B.]

Serious allegation of Forgery, fraud, collusion and misrepresentation could not be decided without recording of evidence•
[2008 SCMR 236]

CASE REMANDED:
S.12(2)---Application U/ S.12(2) CPC. Containing serious allegations of forgery and fraud could not be decided without recording of evidence. [2008 SCMR 236, [p.239] A. 2006 SCMR [p. 1532] A & B.
1993 SCMR [p. 712] A.]

Trail Court aught to frame issues and record evidence of parties, particularly when decree had also been passed without evidence of parties.
Decree passed without recording evidence of parties---Application for setting aside such decree on grounds of fraud, collusion and misrepresentation-Plea of petitioner was that exemption orders were invalid, fictitious, forged thus----Dismissal of application summarily by trial Court was upheld in revision and by High Court in Constitutional Petition---Disposal of application in such manner was not justified in view of serious allegations leveled therein—Trail Court aught to have framed issues and recorded evidence of parties, particularly when decree had also been passed without evidence of parties.
[2006 SCMR [p. 1532] A & B.]

Status Quo Confirmed : [1987 CLC 484]

S.12(2)---Applicant challenging validity of decree under S.12(2) CPC, Status quo order issued earlier was confirmed in order to avoid third party interest and to avoid complications.