Sections 9, 19 and 22 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Section 12 (2), after the judgment of a challenged d?cor suit on a charge of fraudulent and misrepresentation for recovery of debt, are granted by the borrower to the residential property. The decree was auctioned in execution. , Which the respondent successfully purchased and such sale was affirmed by the court and the possession of the property was granted to the plaintiff by the Appellant under section 12 (2), CPC, which I challenged this order, saying it had dismissed the legal applicant. The application merely stated that the decree was based on fraud and misrepresentation. The essential components of the drawback, if any, were not requested nor are elements of misrepresentation mentioned in the application under section 12 (2), if the CPC alleges fraud. If so, its essential ingredients should be pleaded, so that later general and punitive allegations of fraud and misrepresentation could be proved, which could not have been the basis. Otherwise, to upset an order, otherwise the court of a competent jurisdiction has validly approved, there is no case for interference in the unknown order, the appeal is dismissed.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
