2018 C L C 581
[Balochistan]
Before Mrs. Syeda Tahira Safdar and Abdullah Baloch, JJ
DIRECTOR GENERAL NADRA through Deputy Manager (Legal) ----Petitioner
Versus
POPALZAI and another ----Respondents
C.P. No.884 of 2013, decided on 18th December, 2017.
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---
----S. 12(2) ---Decree, setting aside of ---Fraud and misrepresentation ---Effect ---Contention of
applicants was that impugned decree was obtained by means of misrepresentation and
material points were concealed from the co urt---Petition for setting aside of decree was
dismissed concurrently ---Validity ---Computerized National Identity Card of respondent -
plaintiff had been blocked by NADRA authorities as alien after due process on the report of
Federal Investigation Agency ---Respondent -plaintiff was afforded opportunity of being heard
by the NADRA authorities ---Said information subsequently came to the knowledge of
NADRA after obtaining judgment and decree by the respondent ---Serious allegation was on
record against the respon dent plaintiff ---Courts below were supposed to decide the case on
merit instead of deciding the same on mere technicalities and thus committed miscarriage of
justice ---Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below were perverse and
suffered fro m conjunctures and surmises and not sustainable which were set aside ---Case was
remanded to the Trial Court with the direction that matter be decided afresh after providing
opportunity to the parties ---Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.
Zubair Naseem for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 23rd November, 2017.
JUDGMENT
ABDULLAH BALOCH, J. --- This judgment disposes of instant petition filed by the
Director General NADRA through Deputy Manager (Legal) RHO Balochistan, ag ainst the
order dated 15th November, 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge -VII, Quetta, in Civil
Miscellaneous Application No.09/2012, whereby the application under Section 12(2), C.P.C.
of petitioner was dismissed and order dated 16th August, 2013 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge -VI, Quetta, whereby the revision of the petitioner was dismissed.
The petitioner filed the instant petition, on the following prayer:
"It is therefore, prayed that in view of the above submissions the impugned orde r
dated 15 -11-2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge -VII Quetta and the order dated
16th Aug 2013 passed by Additional District Judge -VI Quetta may kindly be set -aside
and the constitutional petition may kindly be allowed in the interest of justice equity
and fair play."
2. Brief facts of the petition are that the respondent filed a suit for declaration and
permanent injunction against the petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge -VII Quetta with the
averments that he being a law -abiding citizen of Pakistan ha ving/possessing all required
citizenship documents including Manual National Identity Card, applied for a Computerized
National Identity Card ("CNIC") with the petitioner, which accordingly issued to him on 4th
October, 2003. The CNIC bearing No.54400 -8351 541-7 which was valid upto 30th
September 2011. Meanwhile, he was intended to perform Hajj, as such, applied for passport,
where he came to know his CNIC is blocked by the NADRA, as such, he approached the
NADRA office time and again, but all in vain.
3. The suit of respondent was contested by the petitioner by means of filing written
statement, wherein raised certain objection on maintainability of suit of the respondent.
4. The learned trial Court after framing issues and recording evidence decreed the su it of
the respondent, vide judgment and decree dated 16th May 2011. However, the petitioner
failed to file appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree, but at a belated stage filed an
application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. before the trial Court on t he grounds that the decree
in question was obtained by the respondent by means of misrepresentation and fraud and
material points were concealed from the trial Court.
5. The application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. was contested by the respondent after
hearing the parties the learned trial Court dismissed the application vide order dated 15th
November 2012.
6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner assailed the same before the revisional court by filing
Civil Revision, however, the revision of the petitioner was al so dismissed, vide order dated
16th August, 2013 by the Additional District Judge -VI, Quetta. Hence, the petitioner filed the
instant petition. Pre -admission notices were issued to respondent on 4th June, 2015 as per
order sheet dated 17th November, 2015 n otice was received for respondent No.1 by Mr.
Feroz Khan Tareen, Advocate, but however, none was appeared on his behalf, as such,
notices through publication in newspaper were ordered and despite publication of notices in
newspaper no one appeared on behal f of the respondent, as such, he was proceeded against ex
parte on 10th December 2015.
7. The learned counsel for petitioner mainly contended that the decree dated 16th May,
2011 was obtained by means of fraud and misrepresentation; that the material point s were
concealed by the respondent at the time of filing of suit; that the impugned judgment and
decree dated 16th May, 2011 was sent by the petitioner to NADRA Headquarter Islamabad
for implementation, where for the first time it was revealed that respond ent/plaintiff having
CNIC No.54400 -8351541 -7 is blocked "Under Fraud Control System" as data provided by
the Ministry of Hajj/FIA in the FIR No.179/2007 and this aspect of the case was not brought
by the respondent in the knowledge of Authority as well as in the pleadings; that in the year
2007 same alien proceeded to Makkah for performing Hajj on the CNIC number of
respondent/plaintiff with his connivance, this fact was duly brought into the knowledge of
respondent/plaintiff by the petitioner, but this imp ortant point was not taken into
consideration by the both Courts below; that the impugned orders also suffer from misreading
and non -reading of evidence; that the petitioner was condemned unheard and without
providing opportunity to the petitioner the appl ication was decided in a haphazard manner
which resulted into miscarriage of justice.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record minutely, which
reveals that the respondent filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction a gainst the
petitioner for blockage of his CNIC. The suit of respondent was contested by the petitioner on
legal as well as on factual grounds. After framing issues and recording evidence the suit of
the respondent was decreed by the learned trial Court, vi de judgment and decree dated 16th
May, 2011.
9. It is further appeared from the record instead filing of appeal, the petitioner had
transmitted the judgment and decree dated 16th May, 2011 to its Head Quarter, Islamabad for
implementation. However. during the course of process it came in the knowledge of
petitioner's Head Quarter Islamabad that the CNIC of respondent was blocked under "Fraud
Control System" in "Confirmation Alien" category as data provided by Ministry of Hajj and
FIA. In this regard the NAD RA Islamabad wrote a letter dated 12th June, 2012 to the
NADRA Provincial Headquarters Quetta, wherein specifically mentioned in para 3 of above
letter that:
"3. Keeping in view the above letter under reference is returned unsanctioned
please forward the s ame along with attested/verified Court orders for further
processing of the case. please also clarify the followings:
a. Whether the report from FIA regarding said case have been obtained or not.
b. Whether the legal notices have been issued to recommended intruders or
otherwise, if no same may please be ensured at priority being an essential legal
requirement and confirm. In this connection your attention is invited to Head
Quarter NADRA letter No.HQ /A-Admin/legal 3/23(17)/10 HC dated 30th
December 2010."
9(sic) It is further transpired from letter dated 25th June, 2012 of the NADRA Headquarter
Balochistan Quetta that the case of respondent was already processed and he was called by
the petitioner on 22nd June 2012 at verification section Airport Road Quetta and explained all
the current situation regarding his case, he is being also instructed to provide the clarification
letter from FIA Karachi in personal in order to pursue his case further. As soon as the letter is
received from said agency, his case will be again perused to Headquarter NADRA Islamabad
for necessary clearance."
10. From bare perusal of aforesaid letters of NADRA its appeared that the CNIC of
respondent was not simply blocked by the petitioner rather the same was blocked after due
process on the report of Hajj/FIA, being alien and he was afforded opportunity of being
heard, but all such informations were subsequently came into the knowledge of NADRA after
obtaining the judgment and de cree by the respondent.
11. Be that as it may, being serious allegations came on record against the respondent.
The trial Court as well as appellate Court were supposed to decide the case on merit instead
of deciding the same on mere technicalities, as suc h, both the Courts have committed
miscarriage of justice. The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are ridiculous,
perverse, suffers from conjunctures and surmises and not sustainable. Besides, recently the
Government of Balochistan Home and Tr ibal Affairs Department vide its notification dated
10th May, 2017 in pursuance of Government of Pakistan Islamabad Notification
No.8/37/2016 -NADRA dated 19th April 2017 constituted a Committee for resolution of
blocked CNIC.
12. Consequently the petition is partly accepted and impugned order dated 15th
November, 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge -VII Quetta and order dated 16th August
2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge -VI Quetta are set -aside and case is
remanded to the learned trial Court, with directions that the application under section 12(2),
C.P.C. filed by the petitioner is deemed to be pending and with further directions to decide
the matter afresh after providing full and fair opportunities to the parties to file documents in
support of their case is so desired and decide the matter expeditiously on merits in accordance
with law.
ZC/1/Bal. Case remande dThis judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.