DAEWOO PAKISTAN MOTORWAY SERVICE LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM
The provisions of section 12 (2) and OVI, R 4 decree, fraud and misrepresentation were set aside before the applicant was the defendant who was the defendant in the case filed by the defendant and against it. The judgment passed against him on the fraud and misrepresentation trial was framed after the framing of the cases filed by the applicant under section 12 (2) CPC validation. And wanted to question the authenticity of any order based on a false statement, should have mentioned the claim and the date as well as the details of the fraud. Akh other party can can meet with the same or deny this. The law requires that if accused of fraud and misrepresentation, he has to prove by the same person alleging the same petitioner that he failed to identify or mention any of the ingredients. The petitioner failed to prove the same in his petition and in the evidence, therefore, the applicant did not meet the requirement of section 12 (2). The CPC applicant failed in any of the jurisdictional defects, legal weakness, materiality. Each case was to be judged on its own merits, with the trial court's decision indicating irregularities, misrepresentation and non-reading of evidence, therefore, the High Court refused to interfere with the jurisdiction of the review. Results recorded by the trial court
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
