MUNIR AHMAD KHAN vs SAMIULLAH KHAN And Another
This matter concerns two civil petitions arising from a common order of the Lahore High Court, which affirmed the trial court's decision to implead two Advocates as respondents in applications filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioner had sought to remove these Advocates from the array of respondents, arguing they were neither necessary nor proper parties but merely witnesses. The core legal question was whether Advocates who allegedly colluded with the petitioner to file written statements admitting a claim, thereby facilitating a decree through fraud, can be impleaded as respondents in proceedings challenging that decree under Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the Advocates were properly impleaded as respondents given the allegations of collusion and fraud in obtaining the decrees. The key principle laid down is that individuals, including Advocates, who are alleged to have actively participated in the fraud or collusion that led to a decree, are proper parties to proceedings challenging that decree under Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
- Can Advocates who allegedly colluded to obtain a decree through fraud be impleaded as respondents in an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Are persons alleged to have participated in the fraud that led to a decree necessary or proper parties in proceedings challenging that decree?
- Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--These two petitions are being disposed of by a common order because they arise also from a common order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court.
2. The facts necessary to be stated for purposes of this order are that Mr. Amir A.I Malik, Advocate was impleaded as a respondent in an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. (subject-matter of Civil Petition No.833 of 1986) while Malik Mohammad Salim, Advocate, was impleaded as a respondent in another (subject-matter of Civil Petition No. 834 of 1986). Both these applications under section 12(2), C.P.C. Were filed to challenge the validity of the two decrees on the ground that the Advocates (who were impleaded as) had filed written statements in two suits wherein they accepted the claim of the plaintiff in the said suits by colluding with him and, therefore, the decrees had been obtained by fraud.
3. The petitioner herein moved applications under section 151. C . P. C . In both these proceedings wherein he prayed for deleting the said Advocates from the array of the respondents on the ground that they were neither necessary nor proper parties to the said proceedings as were only witnesses therein.
4. The applications of the petitioner were dismissed by the trial Court and the revision filed against them under section 115, C.P.C. Were also dismissed by the High Court observing:- "Since Messrs Ameer A.I Malik and Malik Muhammad Saleem Advocates allegedly colluded with the petitioner and others and filed written statements admitting the claim of the petitioner and others pursuant to their collusion with the petitioner and others. They have, therefore, rightly been impleaded as respondents in the applications under section 12(2), C.P.C."
5. By these two petitions leave is sought against the said order of the High Court. We have heard Ch. Muhammad Hasan, Advocate, in support of these petitions and are inclined to agree with the view taken by the High Court that the said two Advocates could be impleaded as respondents in the application under section 12(2), C.P.C.
6. These petitions are dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- Asif Munawar vs Bank Islami Pakistan and 02 others 2023 SHC 283, 2024 CLD 126
- PAKISTAN EMPLOYEES' COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY Versus AWAMI CONSTRUCTIONS CO. LTD 2003 CLC 607