MUHAMMAD IQBAL And Another vs MUHAMMAD ALAMGIR And Other
This petition arises from a dispute over Property No. 138-Anarkali, Lahore, which was referred to arbitration and culminated in a rule of court judgment. Respondents filed an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside the judgment on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. The Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application as barred by time relying on Article 173 of the Limitation Act 1908, but the High Court subsequently held that such applications are governed by Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908, following a conflicting view from another High Court. The petitioners challenged this view before the Supreme Court. The core legal question concerns the appropriate period of limitation applicable to an application filed under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to authoritatively resolve the divergence of views among the High Courts regarding the applicable limitation article.
- What is the applicable period of limitation for an application filed under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does Article 173 or Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 govern an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Article 173, Limitation Act 1908
- Article 181, Limitation Act 1908
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--The facts giving rise to this petition are briefly that the petitioners and the respondents had a dispute with regard to a part of Property No. 138-Anarkali, Lahore. The parties referred the matter to an Arbitrator. The award was made rule of the Court vide judgment dated 4-2-1982 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore. Respondents 1 to 8 thereafter filed an application under section 12 (2), C.P.C. For setting aside the judgment of the Civil Judge, on the ground that it had been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. This application was, however, dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge on 14-1-1985 on the ground that it was barred by the. In holding so, he relied on Sikandar v. Saleh Muhammad 1983 C -L C 1590, wherein the view taken is that the period of limitation for application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was governed by Article 173 of the Limitation Act. The learned High Court, however, relied on a Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Sind reported as Malik Inayatullah Khan v. Government of Pakistan PLD 1985 Pesh. 23 wherein after considering the aforementioned judgment of the Karachi High Court it was held that such application was governed by Article 181 of the Limitation Act. This view of the Lahore High Court has been challenged by the petitioners through the present petition.
2. Since there is divergence of view on the above-noted question between the High Courts we feel that the matter requires an authoritative Pronouncement by this Court on the question involved in this case. Leave is, therefore, granted for the said purpose.
Security in the sum of Rs.1,000.
To be heard on the same record with permission to file additional documents.
3. Stay already granted shall continue.
4. Since proceedings in the trial Court are being stayed by this Court the appeal arising out of this petition should be fixed for hearing at a very early date.