Tenant Cannot Challenge Ex-Parte Rent Order Under Section 12(2) – Supreme Court
سپریم کورٹ کا فیصلہ: کرایہ دار Ex-Parte حکم کو سیکشن 12(2) کے تحت چیلنج نہیں کر سکتا
2025 SCMR 358
سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان نے ایک اہم قانونی نکتے پر فیصلہ سنایا کہ اگر کسی کرایہ دار کے خلاف کرایہ داری کا مقدمہ یکطرفہ (Ex-Parte) طور پر ڈگری ہو جائے، اور وہ عدالت میں پیش نہ ہو، تو وہ اس ڈگری کو سیکشن 12(2) سی پی سی کے تحت چیلنج نہیں کر سکتا۔
عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ ایسے مقدمے میں درخواست برائے تنسیخ ڈگری (Application under Section 12(2) CPC) قابلِ سماعت نہیں ہوگی، کیونکہ یہ قانونی چارہ جوئی کا درست طریقہ نہیں ہے۔ اگر کرایہ دار ڈگری سے مطمئن نہیں تو اسے چاہیے کہ وہ متعلقہ فورم، یعنی اپیل یا نظرثانی کی درخواست دائر کرے۔
اہم نکات
سیکشن 12(2) کا اطلاق صرف انہی مقدمات پر ہوتا ہے جن میں دھوکہ دہی یا جعل سازی ثابت ہو۔
اگر فریق خود عدالت میں پیش نہ ہو تو اسے قانونی طریقہ کار (Appellate or Revisional Forum) اختیار کرنا ہوگا۔
عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ ہر درخواست گزار کو فورم کا درست انتخاب کرنا چاہیے۔
قانونی ماہرین کے لیے یہ فیصلہ کیوں اہم ہے؟
یہ فیصلہ اس بات کی وضاحت کرتا ہے کہ سیکشن 12(2) کو ہر جگہ استعمال نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔ غلط فورم سے رجوع کرنے سے نہ صرف وقت کا ضیاع ہوتا ہے بلکہ درخواست خارج ہونے کا امکان بھی بڑھ جاتا ہے۔
Must read Judgement
---
Citation Name : 2025 SCMR 358 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : SADAQAT ALI
Side Opponent : Mst. NASREEN AKHTAR
S. 15---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2) ---Eviction of tenant---Default in payment of monthly rent---Unauthorized subletting of the property---Ex-parte order passed by Rent Controller not obtained by way of fraud or misrepresentation---Rent Controller attempted to serve notices upon the lesses and petitioners in the rent/eviction application through various modes, including by way of Bailiff, Registered Post A/D, T.C.S, pasting notice on the wall and gate of the property and finally through publication---Despite these efforts, the lessee and petitioners in the matter failed to appear---In view of the same, the Rent Controller decided that service was valid/good against the lessee and petitioners and after being afforded several chances to contest the case, the lessee and petitioners were ordered to be proceeded against ex parte, which was followed by an ex parte judgment, allowing the land lady's (respondent's) rent/eviction application---Validity---Rent Controller had attempted to issue notices to the petitioners through numerous modes, including by way of the Court Bailiff, Registered Post A/D, T.C.S, pasting notice on the wall and gate of the property and finally through publication---It was only after exhausting all the modes of service that the Rent Controller held service to be good against the petitioners---Despite notice, through all its modes and at the correct address, the petitioners had failed to enter appearance and absented themselves from proceedings in the eviction application---Order for ex parte proceedings and ex parte judgment that followed could not, therefore, be considered as a result of fraud or misrepresentation but of the willful absence of the petitioners---Furthermore, the fact that there had earlier been litigation concerning the property was not a valid ground for interference with the findings of the three Courts below---Moreover, the controversy highlighted by the petitioners that in an earlier rent/eviction application, the respondent's attorney had claimed to be owner whereas in the instant application he claimed to be the respondent's attorney would not improve their case since it would not change their status as unauthorized sub-lessees of the original lessee---No valid ground was found for interference with the orders of the three Courts below---Petition, being devoid of any merits, was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.
Popular articles