TANVEER JAMSHED And Another vs Raja GHULAM HAIDER
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal arising from rent proceedings. The judgment addresses several important legal questions concerning the competency and limitation period for an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 filed by a non-party alleging fraud, the effect of the pendency of a parallel civil suit, and whether Section 22 of the Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 bars third parties from filing objections in execution proceedings or obstructing them when not claiming through the judgment debtor. Finding that the points raised deserve consideration, the Supreme Court grants leave to appeal, allows the petition upon furnishing security, and directs that the appeal be heard on the present record with liberty to file additional documents. The Court establishes that applications under Section 12(2) involving allegations of fraud by non-parties and third-party obstruction rights under rent execution laws require authoritative examination.
- Was the application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 competent by a petitioner in the trial Court inasmuch as he was not a party to the rent proceedings?
- Was the application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 within time and what Article of the Limitation Act was applicable in view of allegations of fraud?
- What was the effect of the pendency of Suit No. 4141 of 1980 in the Court of the Civil Judge Karachi?
- Whether the provision of Section 22 of the Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 debarred third parties from filing objections in execution proceedings and whether such third persons could obstruct execution?
- Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 22, Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--Several legal points raised in this petition, inter alia, the following deserve consideration:
(a) Was the application under section 12(2) C.P.C. Competent by the petitioner No.1, in the trial Court inasmuch as he was not a party to the rent proceedings?
(b) Was the said application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Within time and that what Article of Limitation Act was applicable to the case in view of allegations of fraud having been made in the said application.
(c) What was the effect of the pendency of Suit No.4141, of 1980 (New No. 206 of 1985) in the Court of VII. (East) Civil Judge Karachi.
(d) Whether the provision of Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (Section 22) debarred third parties from filing objections in the execution in proceedings and whether could such third person obstruct the execution proceedings on the ground that he was not claiming possession through the Judgment Debtor?
2. Leave is granted and the petition is allowed. Security Rs.2,000.
3. Appeal will be heard on the present record. It is, however, open to the parties to file additional documents, if any. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 1 case
- BASHIR AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD FAROOQ And 15 Other 1989 MLD 433