 |
| Fraud of attorney (مختار ) |
2024 C L C 734
[Peshawar (Mingora Bench)]
Before Muhammad Ijaz Khan, J
GHULAM BAHADAR----Petitioner
Versus
AKBAR BACHA and others----Respondents
C.M. No.12(2), 21-M of 2018 in Writ Petition No.214-M of 2015, decided on 19th October, 2022.
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----S.12(2)---Bar to further suit---Pre-conditions---For maintaining petition under S. 12(2), C.P.C., and for setting aside an order / judgment / decree, aggrieved person has to establish elements of fraud, misrepresentation, or illegality committed in order / judgment / decree in question.
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
-----S.12(2)----Word “fraud”----Scope----Active concealment and suppression of facts in words and deeds is an essential ingredient of fraud----Fraud cannot be inferred by mere assertion, rather it must be proved through strong, independent, clear and convincing evidence----Burden is heavier in the cases in which a long period has passed since passing of degree or judgment under which valuable rights accrue in favour of opposite party.
(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
-----S. 12 (2)----Judgment, setting aside of----Plea of fraud----Principal and attorney relationship----Compromise by attorney in absence of principal----Applicant was aggrieved of disposal of constitutional petition filed by respondents on the basis of compromise effected by attorney in his absence----Validity----Fraud vitiates solemn proceedings and time does not sanctify action of fraud and misrepresentation----No inference of fraud can be drawn merely on the basis of oral assertion in absence of any proof of allegation of fraud----Applicant took plea of fraud and was under heavy burden to substantiate allegation of fraud through clear and convincing evidence----Applicant was not able to discharge his onus to the satisfaction of law----Evidence recorded in civil suit and evidence brought on record in proceedings under S.12(2), C.P.C., did not suggest any concealment or suppression of material facts by respondents----Factum of fraud or misrepresentation or lack of jurisdiction were sine qua non for maintaining and allowing application under S. 12(2), C.P.C.---Mere bald submission of applicant that he was not present personally on the date fixed could not be entertained as against the law that principal was bound for the acts done by his validly appointed attorney----High Court in exercise of powers under S.12(2), C.P.C., declined to set aside order / judgment passed on the basis of compromise as the same was not result of any fraud or misrepresentation committed, nor the same was result of any jurisdictional defect or any other material irregularity----Application was dismissed, in circumstances.
Mst. Nasira Khatoon and another v. Mst. Aisha Bai and 12 others 2003 SCMR 1050; Saifuddin v. Zainuddin and another 1992 MLD 631; Swat Textile Mills Limited, Haripur through Managing Director and 4 others v. Mst. Nabeela and others PLD 2021 Pesh. 146 and Imam Din and 4 others v. Bashir Ahmed and others PLD 2005 SC 418 ref.
(d) Power of attorney---
----Scope and proof---Power of attorney must be strictly construed and proved---Object and scope of power of attorney must be seen in the light of its recital to ascertain manner of exercise of authority in relation to terms and conditions specified in the instrument----Rule of construction of such document is that special powers contained therein followed by general words are to be construed as limited to what is necessary for the proper exercise of special powers----Where authority is given to do a particular act followed by general words, such authority is deemed to be restricted to what is necessary for purpose of doing the particular act----General words do not confer general power but are limited for the purpose for which the authority is given and are construed for enlarging special powers necessary for the purpose and must be construed so as to include the purpose necessary for effective execution.
Unair Ali Khan and others v. Faiz Rasool and others PLD 2013 SC 190; Moiz Abbas v. Mrs. Latifa and others 2019 SCMR 74 and Malik Tahir Ayub through Special Attorney v. Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and 2 others PLD 7015 Lah. 57 rel.
Siraj Ali for Petitioner.
Majeed Ullah for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 19th October, 2022.
اس کیس میں بنیادی تنازعہ یہ تھا کہ درخواست گزار (غلام بہادر) نے یہ مؤقف اختیار کیا کہ اس کا مختار (اٹارنی) اس کی غیر موجودگی میں مصالحت کر چکا تھا اور یہ مصالحت اس کی مرضی کے خلاف تھی، لہٰذا اسے دھوکہ دہی اور غلط بیانی (Fraud & Misrepresentation) قرار دے کر ختم کیا جائے۔
عدالت نے معاملے کا جائزہ لینے کے بعد قرار دیا کہ:
- محض یہ کہنا کہ درخواست گزار موجود نہیں تھا، دھوکہ دہی ثابت کرنے کے لیے کافی نہیں۔
- درخواست گزار پر یہ بھاری ذمہ داری تھی کہ وہ دھوکہ دہی کے واضح اور ناقابل تردید ثبوت فراہم کرے، جو وہ نہ کر سکا۔
- اگر مختار (اٹارنی) کو باقاعدہ قانونی اختیار دیا گیا تھا، تو اصولی طور پر اس کے کیے گئے اقدامات مؤکل (Principal) پر لازم ہوتے ہیں۔
- ریکارڈ پر ایسا کوئی ثبوت نہیں تھا کہ مختار نے کوئی چیز چھپائی یا غلط بیانی سے کام لیا ہو۔
لہٰذا، عدالت نے درخواست گزار کی درخواست مسترد کر دی اور قرار دیا کہ یہ مصالحت دھوکہ دہی یا غلط بیانی پر مبنی نہیں تھی۔ اس کا مطلب یہ ہے کہ اصل تنازعہ مختار (اٹارنی) کے مصالحت کرنے پر تھا، نہ کہ وکیل (اٹارنی ایٹ لا) کے کسی بیان پر۔
No comments:
Post a Comment