Mst. ANWAR BEGUM through LRs, and others vs MUHAMMAD FAZIL and others
This petition arises from an order dated 11-10-2000 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which dismissed an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 seeking to set aside a compromise decree dated 4-10-1999. The core legal question was whether a decree can be set aside under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground that the underlying compromise is not being acted upon by the opposing party, in the absence of any allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the mere failure of a party to act upon a compromise is not a valid ground to set aside a decree under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The key principle laid down is that relief under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 requires specific allegations and proof of fraud, misrepresentation, or want of jurisdiction, rather than subsequent grievances regarding the implementation of a compromise.
- Can a compromise decree be set aside under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 merely because the compromise is not being acted upon?
- Is non-implementation of a compromise a valid ground for invoking Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation?
- Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- This petition calls question an order dated 11-10-2000 passed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in a miscellaneous application filed therein bearing No,1636-C of 1999 under section 12(2) of the C.P.C. The learned High Court dismissed the said application and had declined to set aside the decree dated 4-10-1999 on the ground that no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation or even want or lack of jurisdiction had been made out to impugn the said decree. Even before us the complaint of the petitioner (sic) or not that the side through any fraud or misrepresentation or even that the decree in question had been passed without jurisdiction but the grievance is that the said compromise on the basis of which the decree in question had been passed, was not being acted upon by the other side.
2. This is hardly a ground on which a decree could be set aside under section 12(2) of the C.P.C.
3. In this view of the matter, this petition is misconceived which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused.