Pakistan Case Law
1997 SCMR 610

Mst. DILBAR HAMID Applicant vs Dr. GHULAM BHEEK KHAN And Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1997 SCMR 610
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Miscellaneous Application No.560 of 1996 L.P.A. No.221 of 1971
Date1996-12-15
Judge(s)Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Muhammad Bashir Khan Jehangiri
ResultApplication dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

The petitioner filed a miscellaneous application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to set aside a judgment of the Supreme Court dated 11-8-1991. It was undisputed that prior to this application, two review petitions had been filed challenging the same judgment, and the petitioner's name appeared as an applicant in both. The petitioner contended that she was a permanent resident of Canada and had not authorized any counsel to file those review petitions. The Court observed that there was no material provided to substantiate the claim that the petitioner had not authorized the previous review petitions. Furthermore, the Court held that an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is not maintainable after the dismissal of a review petition by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court dismissed the miscellaneous application as not maintainable, affirming that the statutory remedy under Section 12(2) cannot be invoked once the review process has been exhausted and the judgment has been upheld.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Is an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 maintainable after the dismissal of a review petition by the Supreme Court?
  • Can a party challenge a judgment under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 after having previously participated in review proceedings?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
Section 12(2) CPCmaintainabilityreview petitionsetting aside judgmentprocedural lawSupreme Court judgment

ORDER

1. Petitioner has filed the present Miscellaneous Application under section 12 (2), of C.P.C. Seeking setting aside of judgment of this Court dated 11-8-1991, It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that prior to filing of application under section 12 (2), C.P.C. To review petitions were filed seeking review of judgment dated 11-8-1991 and in both petitions the name of the present petitioner also appears as one of the applicants. The learned counsel, however, contends that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Canada and she did not appoint any counsel to file the review petitions. Beside the fact that no material is available in support of the contention, the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Simply does not lie after dismissal of the review petition by this Court. This miscellaneous application is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.

Cited by 2 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.