Fraud & Misrepresentation

Fraud & Misrepresentation

(SEC.17 & 18 Of Contract Act & O-6 R-4 CPC)

Fraud vitiates all solemn proceedings.

1993 SCMR 618, 710
2001 SCMR 1591
2003 SCMR 549
NLR 2007 SCJ 655

O-6 R-4 CPC.

Sec.17 (Fraud) Sec.18(Misrepresentation) of Contract Act.

PLD 1958 SC. Pak.104.
PLD 1975 Lah. 780
1994 SCMR 782
PLD 1997 Kar. 267
1997 CLC 1500
1997 P.Cr.L.J 1979

-    Order made by a Court, tribunal or other authority acting without jurisdiction as regards subject-matter, pecuniary value or territorial limits – Void – Order obtained by fraud, however, not void but only voidable.
An order obtained by fraud is not void, but only voidable. It remains operative as long as it is not set aside, rescinded, or recalled, by a competent authority in proper proceedings.
While it is true, as has been so often stated, that fraud vitiates all proceedings, it must nevertheless, be borne in mind that allegations of fraud generally raise mixed questions of law and fact which can only be established in an elaborate inquiry. It is for this reason that an order obtained by fraud can be regarded as only being voidable at the instance of any party adversely affected by it.

The  Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore
Versus
Raja Mohammad Fazil Khan and others
PLD 1975 Supreme Court 331

-    Vitiates all solemn transactions and orders.
-    Orders passed without lawful authority, without jurisdiction, against principles of natural justice---Void and of no legal effect.
Ghias-ud-Din
Versus
Iqbal Ahmad & 5 others.
P L D 1975 Lahore 780

-    Ss. 302 & 319---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 345 & 561-A---Appreciation of evidence---Order of acquittal having been obtained fraudulently on the basis of compromise keeping real mother of the deceased out of the same was recalled by High Court under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. and criminal appeal filed by accused was deemed to be pending.
Muhammad Yaqoob
Versus
The State
1997 P Cr. L. J 1979

-    S. 12(2), O.XII, R.6 & O.XXIII, R.3---Decree on basis of alleged compromise challenged by petitioner on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation---General power of attorney containing power to sell, had allegedly been executed by petitioner at the time when petitioner was in Saudi Arabia as indicated by entries of his passport---Exceptional and unusual haste which was quite evident culminating in compromise decree on the 3rd day of institution of suit, which was first date of hearing and events that followed in quick succession, were impracticable except in collusive proceedings--- Compromise application did not contain even reference to admitted amount of balance sale consideration---Expansion of scope of suit through order passed on application under O.XII, R.6, C.P.C. in absence of any admission in tacit terms, could hardly be termed as lawful and would create serious doubts about bona fides on part of those who were party to compromise---Fraud had, thus, been committed in obtaining decree for transfer of property in question, on basis of void agreement and respondents were guilty of deliberate misstatement amounting to fraud---Decree in question was set aside being based on fraud and misrepresentation
S. 17---Fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings---Every representation made to Court which was deliberately false would amount to fraud.
John Paul       V.     Irshad Ali and others
PLD 1997 Karachi 267

-    S.12(2)--- “Fraud”---Every representation made to a Court which is deliberately false amounts to a fraud and would vitiate a decree subject to the exception that a mere falsity of a claim to the knowledge of the person putting forward the claim would not be ground for setting aside the decree on the ground of fraud---Where a claim is false there is a false representation made to the Court but this cannot by itself be a ground for setting aside a decree.
Lal Din and another   V.  Muhammad Ibrahim
1993 S C M R 710

-    S. 12(2)---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 181---Fraud---No party could take advantage of its own fraud---Fraud would vitiate most solemn proceedings---Article 181 of Limitation Act, 1908 was applicable for filing application under S.12(2), Civil Procedure Code against alleged fraud and misrepresentation.
Mst. Sarwari Begum  
Versus
 Ata-ur-Rehman
1997 C L C  1500

-    Fraudulent transaction---Effect---Fraudulent transaction vitiates even most solemn proceedings---Such transaction has no foundation to stand upon---Whenever such transaction is declared null and void, then whole series of such order along with superstructure built upon same is bound to collapse.
Talib Hussain and others
Versus
Member, Board of Revenue and others
2003 S C M R 549

-    S.17---Fraud---Definition---Allegation of fraud---Burden of proof---Fraud vitiates all solemn acts and any instrument, deed or judgment, or decree obtained through fraud is a nullity in the eye of law and can be questioned at any time and can be ignored altogether by any Court of law before whom they are produced in any proceeding---Duty of Court in such a case stated.
Muhammad Younus Khan and 12 others
Versus
Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary, Forest and Agriculture, Peshawar and others.
1993 S C M R 618

-    O.XXIII, R.3---Consent---Challenged on ground of fraud---Decree---Limitation---Decree passed without hearing and notice to the party whose presence was essential before the Court as also without express consent and signatures of the representative of the parties on the compromise application was nullity and question of limitation would not arise.
Government of Sindh through the Chief Secretary and others
Versus
Khalil Ahmed and others
1994 S C M R 782

-    Criminal Prosecution and Civil Liability - Risk of both is always there once footprints of fraudulent transaction are traced to one’s door.

Pakistan State oil Co.    Vs.    Dr. Abdul Rauf etc.
PLD 2012 Sindh 71.