Muhammad Mushtaq Siddique Vs Nadia Khan etc

Form No: HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Civil Revision No. 60996/2026

Muhammad Mushtaq Siddiqui Versus Nadia Khan etc. S.No. of order/ Date of order/ Order with signature of Judge and that of Proceeding Proceeding parties or counsel, where necessary. 12.10.2026 Mr. Muhammad Amir Umar Kasuri, Advocate for the petitioner.

The petitioner, through this revision petition, has assailed the legality and validity of order dated 16.09.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby the application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “CPC”), challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.12.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore, as well as the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, was dismissed.

2.The essential facts giving rise to the present Civil Revision are that late Nadir Bakhsh, father of respondents No.1 to 6, being the lawful owner of the suit property, filed a suit under Section 8 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 titled Nadir Bakhsh versus Muhammad Idrees etc. with regard to land measuring 01 Kanal, owned through a registered document No.11066 dated 28.09.1988, purusant to which Mutation No.11524 was also sanctioned in his favour. The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 03.12.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore. The appeal filed by Muhammad Idrees and 07 others against the aforesaid judgment and decree was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 03.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, against which Civil Revision

Civil Revision No. 60996/2026

No.75441 of 2025 titled Muhammad Idrees etc. v. Nadir Bakhsh (deceased) through L.Rs. is pending adjudication before this Court.

The present petitioner, against the above- mentioned judgments and decrees, earlier filed an application under Section 12(2) read with Section 151 of the CPC before the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore on 20.12.2025, which was dismissed as non-maintainable on 07.03.2026, in the light of case law reported as “Sahabzadi Maharunisa and another v. Mst. Ghulam Sughran and another” (PLD 2016 Supreme Court 358). The revision petition filed thereagainst was also dismissed on 20.06.2026, while relying upon the aforementioned judgment.

Thereafter, the petitioner again filed an application under Section 12(2) of the CPC before the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore which was ultimately dismissed vide order dated 16.09.2026. The said order has been challenged before this Court through the instant revision petition.

3.At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted with the facts infra:-

(i)During the pendency of the suit instituted by Nadir Bakhsh against his real brother and others, the present petitioner appeared as a defendant’s witness on 28.04.2018 before the court of learned Civil Judge Class-I, Lahore and his signatures and thumb impressions alongwith his CNIC number were recorded in the margin of the order sheet.

(ii)During the proceedings on the application under Section 12(2) of the CPC before the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, upon an objection regarding the maintainability of the

Civil Revision No. 60996/2026

application raised by the respondents, the present petitioner was directed to produce his original CNIC, which was accordingly produced and reflected the same particulars. The CNIC number is mentioned in the margin of the order sheet dated 28.04.2018, whereupon the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore on 15.07.2026, recalled the injunctive order dated 23.06.2026.

4.In response thereto, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to deny the presence of the petitioner before the learned trial Court on 28.04.2018 as a witness for his real brother, Muhammad Idrees, in the case titled Nadir Bakhsh versus Muhammad Idrees etc. and also submitted that, to a certain extent, issues were required to be framed.

5.Heard. Record perused.

6.I am afraid that denying the petitioner’s presence before the learned trial Court in 2018 would amount to undermining the judicial proceedings conducted at that time. It is settled law that judicial proceedings carry a presumption of correctness. Even otherwise, this fact is neither denied by Muhammad Idrees, brother of the petitioner, nor challenged by him/petitioner through any independent proceedings.

7.As regards the argument of learned counsel that learned court below was required to frame issues and record evidence in the application under Section 12(2) CPC, it is settled law that for determination of grounds of fraud, misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction, raised in an application under Section 12(2) CPC, the Court is not obligated in each and every case to frame issues mandatorily and record evidence of the parties and it always rests upon the satisfaction of the Court to structure its proceedings and after analyzing nature of

Civil Revision No. 60996/2026

allegations of fraud or mis-representation, the application under Section 12(2) CPC could be decided without recording of evidence. Reliance is placed upon “Mrs. Amina Bibi through General Attorney v. Nasrullah and others” (2000 SCMR 296) and “Hafiz Malik Kamran Akbar and others v. Muhammad Shafi (deceased) through L.Rs. and others” (PLD 2024 SC 262).

8.Upon perusal of the application under Section 12(2) of the CPC, it transpires that the same was filed on the basis that late Nadir Bakhsh had executed an agreement to sell in favour of the present petitioner, to whom he had paid total consideration of Rs.7,000,000/-. It is mentioned in the application that Nadir Bakhsh was the real maternal uncle of the petitioner, due to which the petitioner did not file a suit for specific performance against him. Upon refusal by the legal heirs of Nadir Bakhsh, the petitioner allegedly filed a suit for specific performance against respondents No.1 to 6 on 23.12.2025, which is statedly pending adjudication before the Court of competent jurisdiction. It is observed that the present application has been filed solely on the basis of the alleged agreement to sell, which is yet to be proved.

9.From perusal of the record, it transpires that, despite having an alleged agreement to sell dated 05.01.2011 in his favour, the petitioner did not institute a suit for specific performance until after the decree was passed in the suit instituted by Nadir Bakhsh on 23.05.2015, which was ultimately decreed on 03.12.2024. Even otherwise, the present petitioner filed the suit for specific performance on 23.12.2025, long after the decree had been passed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.1 to 6 and after his death on 26.01.2025.

Civil Revision No. 60996/2026

10.From a plain perusal of the facts, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner is hovering around the suit property of the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.1 to 6.

11.It is a settled principle of law that a remedy is available to enforce or protect a right and not in the absence thereof as encapsulated in the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium (where there is a right, there is a remedy).

12.Apart from the above discussion, the petitioner also lacks the requisite locus standi to maintain an application under Section 12(2) of the CPC. The expression “seek his remedy”, employed in the said provision, necessarily contemplates the existence of a legal right or interest entitling the applicant to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court for the relief sought.

13.The mere assertion of a claim over the subject matter of a decree does not, by itself, confer the requisite standing to challenge it under Section 12(2) of the CPC. The applicant must demonstrate a legally recognizable interest in the subject matter of the proceedings and show how the impugned judgment or decree prejudicially affects such interest. Consequently, the petitioner has failed to establish the requisite locus standi to invoke the said provision.

14.It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner’s brother has already challenged the judgments and decrees (passed against him) through Civil Revision No.75441/2025.

15.Even otherwise, it appears unnatural that, while his brother was litigating over the same piece of land, the petitioner remained unaware of the litigation despite allegedly having an agreement to sell executed in his favour by the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.1 to 6.

Civil Revision No. 60996/2026

16.In the attending circumstances, it is very much clear that the petitioner wasted the precious time of the Courts below in two rounds as well as of this Court which could be utilized in adjudicating other cases.

17.For the foregoing reasons, since learned counsel for the petitioner has miserably failed to pinpoint any illegality, legal infirmity or jurisdictional defect in the impugned order which is immaculate, therefore, this Civil Revision being devoid of force stands dismissed in limine.

Signed (MALIK WAQAR HAIDER AWAN)

20.10.2026 JUDGE

Abis Ali

APPROVED FOR REPORTING

JUDGE