Present: Irshad Hasan Khan and Sh I!a" #isar$ %% Mrs &MI#& 'I'I throu(h )enera* &ttorne+,,,Petitioner -ersus #&SR.//&H and others,,,Respondents Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.361-L of 1999, decided on 24th Septemer, 1999. !"n appeal from the #$d%ment dated 26-11-199& pa''ed ( Lahore )i%h Co$rt, Lahore, in *rit Petition No.++, of 1996-. 0a1 Ci-i* Pro2edure Code 03 of 49051,,, ----S'.12!2-, 96!2-, 114, "../, 0.13 1 "./L2..---Con'tit$tion of Pa3i'tan !1943-, Art.1&+!3----56 parte decree---0emedie'---*here civil '$it 7a' decreed e6 parte, vario$' remedie' availale to a%%rieved per'on 7ere8 fir'tl(, filin% application $nder "../, 0.13, C.P.C., 'econdl(, application $nder S.96!2-, C.P.C., thirdl(, petition for revie7 $nder S.114 read 7ith ". /L2.., C.P.C. and fo$rthl(, petition $nder S.12!2-, C.P.C.--Petitioner havin% e6ha$'ted remed( ( filin% an application $nder "../, 0.13, C.P.C., 'he co$ld not e permitted to rea%itate 'ame i''$e ( mean' of fre'h petition $nder S.12!2-, C.P.C. 061 Ci-i* Pro2edure Code 03 of 49051,,,,, ----S.12!2----Proceedin%' on petition $nder S.12!2-, C.P.C.---*hile dealin% 7ith alle%ation' $nder S.12!2-, C.P.C., it 7a' not inc$ment $pon Co$rt that it m$'t, in all circ$m'tance', frame i''$e', record evidence and follo7 proced$re pre'cried for deci'ion of the '$it. Amiran 9ii v. :$hammad 0am;an 1999 SC:0 1334 ref. :ir;a )afee;$r 0ehman, Advocate S$preme Co$rt 7ith <anvir Ahmed, Advocate-on- 0ecord for Petitioner. Nemo for 0e'pondent'. =ate of hearin%> 24th Septemer, 1999. %.7)M8#9 IRSH&7 H&S&# KH&#$ %---<hi' petition for leave to appeal i' directed a%ain't the #$d%ment dated 26-11-199&, pa''ed ( a learned Sin%le ?$d%e of the Lahore )i%h Co$rt in *rit Petition No.++, of 1996. 2. 9rief fact' are that on 1+-11-1969, Ch. @aAir Bllah, predece''or-in-intere't of the private re'pondent' herein, filed a '$it for po''e''ion thro$%h pre-emption in re'pect of the land in di'p$te a%ain't the petitioner. <he '$it 7a' di'mi''ed for non-pro'ec$tion on 3-4-1941. .t i' alle%ed that the ca'e 7a' re'tored on 9-4-1941, 7itho$t %ivin% notice to the petitioner. Altho$%h on 2,-9-1941, the ca'e 7a' 'ent to the Co$rt of learned =i'trict ?$d%e for tran'fer to 'ome other Co$rt of competent #$ri'diction, in that, the learned Civil ?$d%e, 'ei;ed of the matter, had no #$ri'diction to tr( the '$it (et the 'ame 7a' f$rther proce''ed ( the learned Civil ?$d%e. 3. 9e that a' it ma(, the petitioner a'ented her'elf and 7a' proceeded a%ain't e6 parte. "n 3-1-1943, the petitioner moved an application $nder "rder ./, 0$le, 13, C.P.C., for 'ettin% a'ide the e6 parte decree, on the %ro$nd that e6 pane proceedin%' 7ere ta3en a%ain't her on 11-1,-1942, 7itho$t 'ervice of notice $pon her. <he 'ame 7a' di'mi''ed. <he appeal a' 7ell a' revi'ion filed ( the petitioner 7ere al'o di'mi''ed. <he 'ame 7a' the fate of the petition for leave to appeal filed ( the petitioner !C.P. No. 126 of 1946-, 7hich 7a' di'mi''ed ( thi' Co$rt on 19-1-194&. 4. After e6ha$'tin% her remedie' a' afore'aid, the petitioner filed an application $nder 'ection 12!2-, C.P.C., for 'ettin% a'ide the e6 parte #$d%ment and decree, dated 6-12- 1942, inter alia, contendin% therein that the '$it earlier di'mi''ed for non-pro'ec$tion 7a' 7ron%l( re'tored on the alle%ed fal'e report of the proce''-'erver that the petitioner had %one el'e7here. .t 7a' al'o pleaded in the application that on 2&-3-1942 a fal'e and fictitio$' attendance of the e6-co$n'el Ch. Cafar$llah, Advocate, 7a' 'ho7n, altho$%h he 7a' not pre'ent efore the Co$rt. .nter alia, on the aove premi'e' it 7a' alle%ed in the application $nder 'ection 12!2-, C.P.C., that the e6 parte decree 7a' otained ( the re'pondent thro$%h fra$d and mi'repre'entation. Alon%7ith the aove application 7a' filed 7ith an application for condonation of dela( $nder 'ection + of the Limitation Act. <he learned Senior Civil ?$d%e ( order dated 1-3-19&9 re#ected the application ein% hit ( "rder 2.., r$le 11, C.P.C. "n revi'ion the learned Additional =i'trict ?$d%e remanded the ca'e to the trial Co$rt for deci'ion afre'h. After recordin% evidence, in p$r'$ance of the remand order, the application 7a' a%ain di'mi''ed ( the learned Senior Civil ?$d%e ( order, dated 19-1-1993. 0evi'ion petition filed a%ain't the 'aid order 7a' di'mi''ed ( the learned Additional =i'trict ?$d%e ( order, dated 21-9-199+. 9ein% a%%rieved, the petitioner filed Con'tit$tional petition efore the )i%h Co$rt, 7hich 7a' di'mi''ed ( the learned ?$d%e in Chamer' vide the imp$%ned #$d%ment. <he petitioner no7 'ee3' leave to appeal. +. :ir;a )afee;$r 0ehman, learned Advocate S$preme Co$rt for the petitioner ar%$ed that the provi'ion' of "rder ./, 0$le 13, C.P.C. and 'ection 12!2-, C.P.C., are independent remedie' and invocation of one doe' not e6cl$de the application of the other. 5laoratin% the plea, he '$mitted that the "rder ./, 0$le 13, C.P.C., contemplate' 'ettin% a'ide e6 parte decree 7herea' 'ection 12!2-, C.P.C., provide' a remed( for 'ettin% a'ide the decree otained thro$%h fra$dDmi'repre'entation. 6. <he learned ?$d%e in Chamer' di'mi''ed the 7rit petition, inter alia, 7ith the follo7in% o'ervation'>-- EAdmittedl( 'he had applied for 'ettin% a'ide e6 par'e decree $t that application 7a' re#ected $p to the level of S$preme Co$rt and the 'ame controver'( co$ld not e re- opened on the a'i' of application $nder 'ection 12!2-, C.P.C. <he learned Additional =i'trict ?$d%e ha' ri%htl( noticed that the di'p$te co$ld not e rea%itated 7hen it 'tood 'ettled $p to the level of the S$preme Co$rt of Pa3i'tan.E 4. *here a '$it ha' een decreed e6 pane, vario$' remedie' are availale to an a%%rieved per'on for redre'' of hi' %rievance. @ir'tl(, an application $nder "rder ./, 0$le 13, C.P,C.8 'econdl(, an appeal from the e6 pane decree $nder 'ection 96 !2-, C.P.C.8 a petition for revie7 $nder 'ection 114 read 7ith "rder /L2.. and a civil '$it on the %ro$nd of fra$d and 7ant of #$ri'diction. <he latter remed( i' no7 '$'tit$ted ( 'ection 12!2-, C.P.C. )ere, the petitioner ha' e6ha$'ted her remedie' ( filin% an application $nder "rder ./, 0$le 13, C.P.C. and, therefore, on the 'ame %ro$nd 'he cannot e permitted to re-a%itate the 'ame i''$e ( mean' of a fre'h petition $nder 'ection 12!2-, C.P.C. &. 9e that a' it ma(, 7hile dealin% 7ith the alle%ation' $nder 'ection 12!2-, C.P.C., it i' not inc$ment $pon the Co$rt that it m$'t, in all circ$m'tance', frame i''$e', record evidence and follo7 the proced$re pre'cried for deci'ion of the '$it a' held if Amiran 9ii v. :$hammad 0am;an !1999 SC:0 1334-. .n the in'tant ca'e, 7e have %one thro$%h the application $nder 'ection 12!2-, C.P.C., moved ( the petitioner and the material availale on record. .n vie7 of the fact' and circ$m'tance' of the ca'e and the #$dicial order' pa''ed $p to thi' Co$rt d$rin% the protracted liti%ation, the application filed ( the petitioner $nder 'ection 12!2-, C.P.C., 7a' liale to e di'mi''ed 7itho$t form$latin% i''$e' and recordin% evidence of the partie'. 9. 0e'$ltantl(, the petition fail' and i' here( di'mi''ed. Leave i' ref$'ed. ).9.<.DA-2,1DS Petition di'mi''ed
2000 S C M R 1321 -Dismissal From Service---Regular Inquiry Not Held---Service Tribunal Had Rightly Concluded That Dismissal of Civil Servant From Service and Subsequent Reduction in Punishment Were Violative of Dictum
1996 S C M 8413 - IRREGULAR Appointment Service Tribunal Having Re Instated Civil Servant Could Not Be Deemed To Have Committed Any Illegality or Irregularity
1998 P L C CS 221 - Constitutional Petition - Employee of Statutory Body - Termination of Service Without Show-Cause Notice and Without Affording Opportunity of Being Heard
1996 P L C CS 433 - Statutory Rules National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Services Rules Were First Promulgated in Year 1973 and Subsequently in Year 1980 Rules of 1980
1996 S C M R 1185 - Rule of Good Governance Demand That The Benefit of Such Judgment by Service Tribunal-Supreme Court Be Extended To Other Civil Servants Who May Not Be Parties To The Litigation
Karen O'connor, by Her Parents and Next Friends, Joseph O'COnnOr and Frances O'connor, Applicant v. Board of Education of School District 23 No. A-384, 449 U.S. 1301 (1980)