In keeping with the application under Section 12 (2) of the Special Relief Act (of 1877), the section 42 suit for declaration agreement, section 12 (2), the CPC charged that fraud and misrepresentation The petitioner claimed that he had purchased the suit property and was in possession of it. The same petition was rejected simultaneously as the applicant had fundamental rights and legal interests in the suit land and was the essential party in the case. Initially, the applicant was included as a defendant in the case. I was excluded from the panel at the request of the defendant to remove the applicant from the defendant's panel which could be considered as a fraud and misrepresentation that the respondent filed through the court. Was imposed and the applicant purchased the property of the suit and was in possession of it. The same applicant was entitled to defend his interests in the suit land The court was not required to go into deep appreciation under Section 12 (2), CPC which was created by any party while deciding the application. Any document that relies on should be practiced in such a manner that when the said application is accepted the available material was to be reviewed. Be made, as the rules and considerations of defining evidence in a regular case and petitions under section 12 (2), were not identical to the CPC, but they were completely different. The decree was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. Error in excluding the application and excluding the applicant's appeal
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2015
