Dist court ruling in property case overturned

LAHORE:

Lahore High Court’s (LHC) Justice Sultan Tanvir Ahmad has remanded a case back to the district court, identifying a critical error in its summary dismissal of a petition challenging a consent decree obtained under allegedly fraudulent circumstances.

The district court had dismissed on Saturday the case on the grounds that no fraud had been committed with the court, overlooking the manner in which the decree was secured.

“The learned district court, while refusing to frame issues and record evidence, has clearly fallen into error. The case was not one that warranted summary dismissal,” Justice Ahmad observed in his ruling.

The case revolved around a petition filed by Bashir Ahmad, who challenged the district court’s order regarding a property dispute.

The petitioner maintained that Muhammad Riaz had obtained a decree on July 9, 2014, in a suit filed on December 9, 1999, against Abdul Qayyum and others.

Riaz later sold 4-kanal 7½ marla of land to Bashir Ahmad, got his statement recorded with the patwari on July 15, 2014, and secured mutation 4432 in his favour.

However, on October 20, 2014, Riaz, allegedly in collusion with Abdul Qayyum and others, appeared before the district court and gave a statement withdrawing his claim, leading to the court dismissing the suit on the same day.

Bashir Ahmad subsequently filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the validity of the decree.

However, the district court dismissed his application on November 25, 2025, without framing issues or recording evidence.

The district court’s reasoning was based on the rule of lis pendens, asserting that since the property was purchased while an appeal was pending, the transaction was subject to legal proceedings, and no fraud had been committed with the court.

Counsel for the respondents emphasized that the rule of lis pendens applied because Bashir Ahmad’s mutation was sanctioned on July 25, 2014, during the appeal period.

However, Justice Ahmad rejected this argument, clarifying that the precedent cited by the respondents was not applicable, as the case in question did not involve a consent decree and had significantly different circumstances.

The court noted that Muhammad Riaz obtained the decree, sold the property to Bashir Ahmad, and then later appeared in the appeal proceedings to give consent for setting aside the decree—raising suspicions of collusion.

Justice Ahmad further highlighted that the district court had wrongly concluded that fraud had not been committed with the court, ignoring the crucial allegation of collusion in judicial proceedings.

“If fraud is committed inter se the parties, and not directly with the court, Section 12(2) of the CPC may not be applicable in the absence of a jurisdictional defect,” the judge observed.

“However, the situation changes when a consent decree is obtained as part of a fraudulent scheme.”

With these observations, the Lahore High Court remanded the case back to the district court for proper proceedings, including the framing of issues and recording of evidence, ensuring a thorough examination of the allegations.