Recent Case law on Fraud and MisrepresentationRecent Case law on Fraud and Misrepresentation

Fraud and Misrepresentation in Pakistani Case Law: A Review of Recent Judgments from 2023

In the complex tapestry of legal proceedings, few concepts are as contested and consequential as fraud and misrepresentation. These twin maladies, often interwoven, have long been a central concern in Pakistani jurisprudence. As the nation’s legal landscape evolves, it becomes imperative to understand how contemporary courts are interpreting and adjudicating cases that hinge on allegations of deceit or misrepresentation. This article delves deep into the recent judgments of Pakistani courts to provide a comprehensive review of the current stance on fraud and misrepresentation. By examining a selection of notable cases from various high courts, we aim to shed light on the principles being upheld, the nuances being considered, and the inherent powers being invoked to ensure that justice isn’t thwarted by deceit. 

We believe that this review of the latest case law offers a valuable insight into how Pakistani courts are navigating the murky waters of fraud and misrepresentation in the modern era.

Analysis on the Issue of Fraud and Misrepresentation in Cases from 2023 


This case primarily dealt with the issue of fraud and misrepresentation as a ground for setting aside a judgment under Section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.). The court highlighted the necessity to provide detailed particulars whenever fraud and misrepresentation are alleged. The party alleging such acts has a duty to prove them under Article 117 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. The plea was dismissed in this case due to insufficient evidence.


In this case, the court emphasized the importance of unequivocal acceptance of an offer to form a binding contract. Even without a formal document, parties are bound if there is no coercion, threat, fraud, or misrepresentation. The party alleging payment bears the burden of proof. The court reaffirmed the principle that a contract entered freely holds the parties to its terms.


This case revolved around the jurisdiction of revenue authorities in matters of fraud and misrepresentation related to registered documents. The court held that only a competent civil court could challenge the cancellation of such documents, invoking the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The revenue authorities had exceeded their powers by declaring the documents void based on allegations of fraud.


The doctrine of ‘ubi jus ibi remedium’ (where there’s a right, there’s a remedy) was invoked in this case. The court held that fraud can be inferred from surrounding circumstances and that it vitiates even the most solemn proceedings. The withdrawal of the appeal was deemed a result of collusion, fraud, and misrepresentation.


The court clarified that allegations of fraud and misrepresentation involve factual investigations. However, not every case requires the court to frame issues and record evidence. The fraud or misrepresentation should have occurred during the court proceedings and not outside. The application under Section 12(2) of the C.P.C. can only be made if the misrepresentation or fraud pertains to the subject matter of the suit.


The court emphasized the principle that allegations of fraud must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. This is especially crucial when a long period has elapsed, and valuable rights have been accrued. In this case, the petitioner failed to provide concrete evidence of fraud, leading to the dismissal of the revision.


The court highlighted the exclusive jurisdiction of civil courts in cases alleging fraud in sanctioning mutation. The revenue authorities cannot review a document where fraud or misrepresentation is alleged during the sanctioning of a mutation.


The case revolved around the issue of proof required in cases alleging fraud. The court reiterated that the beneficiary must prove the validity of the gift mutation when fraud is alleged. It also emphasized the importance of delivery of possession under the mutation.

Recurring Civil Law Provisions:

  • Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 117: This provision regarding the burden of proof was cited in multiple cases. The party alleging fraud or misrepresentation must provide evidence to support their claims.
  • Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2): This section, which pertains to setting aside judgments based on fraud or misrepresentation, was frequently invoked in the cases provided.
  • Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 39, 42 & 54: These sections pertain to the remedy available to a party seeking declaration or injunction due to fraud or misrepresentation. The cases emphasised the importance of approaching a competent civil court for relief.
See also  Pakistanis Filing for Divorce, Khula and Custody Matters in Pakistan when either of the Parties are Abroad 

Further Analysis on the Issue of Fraud and Misrepresentation in the Cases Provided:

Interplay between Fraud and Misrepresentation:

Several of the cases highlighted the distinction between fraud and misrepresentation. Fraud typically involves intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, while misrepresentation is a false statement of fact that induces someone to enter into a contract. Both have serious legal consequences, but fraud, given its intentional nature, often attracts stricter penalties.

Key Takeaways from the Cases:

  • Detailed Allegations: Whenever fraud and misrepresentation are alleged, it’s crucial to provide detailed particulars. A mere assertion or general claim isn’t sufficient; the alleging party must lay out the specifics of the fraudulent act or misrepresentation.
  • Burden of Proof: The principle that the party alleging fraud or misrepresentation bears the initial onus of proving the same is a consistent theme across the cases. This principle is rooted in Article 117 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, which mandates that the party alleging a fact must prove it.
  • Jurisdictional Concerns: Some cases highlighted the importance of approaching the appropriate forum. For instance, revenue authorities don’t have the jurisdiction to address issues of fraud or misrepresentation related to registered documents. Such matters should be brought before a competent civil court.
  • Nature of Evidence: In cases of fraud, the evidence is often circumstantial. It’s rare to have direct evidence of fraudulent intent. Courts, therefore, rely on surrounding circumstances, patterns of behaviour, and other indirect evidence to infer fraudulent intent.
  • Contractual Implications: Contracts entered into based on fraud or misrepresentation can be voided. The presence of fraud or misrepresentation vitiates consent, which is a foundational element of any contract.
  • Concurrent Findings: High Courts are typically reluctant to interfere with the concurrent findings of lower courts, especially when they are well-reasoned and based on a thorough examination of the evidence. This principle was evident in several of the cases where the revisions were dismissed.

Closing Remarks:

It’s evident that allegations of fraud and misrepresentation are treated with the utmost seriousness by the courts. These principles ensure that the sanctity of the judicial process is maintained and that parties are not unjustly enriched through deceitful means.

The recurring provisions from the major civil laws, such as the Qanun E Shahadat, Civil Procedure Code, and Specific Relief Act, serve as guiding lights in navigating these complex issues. They provide a robust framework for addressing allegations of fraud and misrepresentation, ensuring that justice is served and that the rights of parties are protected.

In sum, the cases presented underscore the importance of integrity, transparency, and honesty in legal proceedings and transactions. They serve as a stark reminder of the legal consequences that can ensue when these principles are violated.

A review of some more cases from 2023


This case involves a dispute over a suit for possession under the Specific Relief Act. The Appellate Court reversed the decision of the Trial Court, decreeing the suit. The central issue revolves around the petitioner not being impleaded as a party in the suit. The court found that the petitioner, despite being aware of the proceedings and living with the respondents, failed to act timely. The claim was dismissed on grounds that the petitioner failed to demonstrate he wasn’t impleaded due to fraud or misrepresentation.


The case pertains to a suit for specific performance decreed ex-parte. The petitioners’ application to set aside the ex-parte decree was dismissed. The High Court, upon reviewing the facts, determined that the petitioners had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that they were unaware of the suit’s proceedings and subsequently reversed the concurrent findings.


This case revolves around a petitioner who withdrew his suit based on a compromise, but the cheque facilitating the compromise was dishonoured. The petitioner’s application under Section 12(2) read with Section 151 of the CPC was initially accepted by the Trial Court but later overturned by the revisional court. The High Court reinstated the Trial Court’s decision, emphasizing the powers conferred under Section 151 of the CPC to ensure justice is served.


The core of this dispute is the inheritance of ancestral property, particularly the entitlement of a daughter. The court determined that the plaintiffs (legal heirs of the daughter) were not aware of the inheritance mutations. The High Court upheld the claim that no one should be deprived of their ancestral property based on fraud due to limitation constraints.

See also  Transparency and Right to information Legislation in Pakistan


The dispute concerns the inheritance mutations of property. The plaintiffs asserted a lack of knowledge about these mutations, and the High Court determined that they could not be deprived of their ancestral property based on fraud merely due to limitation constraints.


The petitioner’s application under Section 12(2) of the CPC was dismissed due to non-payment of process fees. Instead of challenging the dismissal, a second application was filed under Section 12(2), which was also dismissed. The High Court held that once a remedy is selected and exhausted, one cannot opt for a second remedy, deeming the second application as not maintainable.


This case highlights the principle of inheritance mutations and the assertion of fraud and misrepresentation. The plaintiffs were unaware of the mutations, and the High Court maintained that no one should be deprived of their ancestral property on grounds of fraud due to limitations.


The appellant failed to appear in the Banking Court, resulting in a decree against him. He later argued that the bank concealed a settlement fact. The High Court found no evidence of concealment or misrepresentation by the bank, dismissing the appeal.

In summation, these cases underscore the significance of due process, timely participation in proceedings, and the grave implications of fraud and misrepresentation in legal disputes. They also emphasize the importance of adhering to procedural formalities and the consequences of neglecting them.

Several overarching themes and legal principles can be deduced from these cases:

1. Importance of Due Process:

A recurring principle throughout these cases is the importance of due process. Whether it’s ensuring all relevant parties are impleaded in a suit or ensuring that parties are aware of proceedings, the courts have stressed the necessity of following the correct procedure. Any deviation or oversight can have serious implications on the outcome of a case.

2. Fraud and Misrepresentation:

Fraud and misrepresentation are potent grounds to challenge and set aside legal proceedings. However, merely alleging fraud is insufficient. The burden of proof rests on the party making the allegation, and they must provide concrete evidence to substantiate their claims.

3. Remedies & Limitations:

In multiple cases, the courts have highlighted the doctrine of election of remedies, which posits that once a particular remedy is chosen and exhausted, one cannot revert and opt for an alternative remedy. Additionally, limitations play a crucial role, particularly when seeking to set aside a decree or judgment.

4. Protection of Rights:

The courts have shown a commitment to protecting the rights of individuals, especially in cases where ancestral property rights are at stake. The principle that no one should be deprived of their ancestral property based on fraud due to limitation constraints has been reiterated in multiple judgments.

5. Jurisdiction & Inherent Powers:

Courts have inherent powers to ensure justice is served. The case involving the conversion of an application under Section 12(2) to Section 151 of the CPC underscores the court’s ability to exercise its inherent powers to protect parties’ rights.

6. Onus of Proof:

The onus of proof, particularly in cases involving allegations of fraud, lies with the party making the allegations. The courts have consistently maintained that mere allegations are insufficient; they must be backed by concrete evidence.

7. The Role of Technicalities:

While procedural technicalities are essential, they should not act as barriers to justice. Courts, in some instances, have looked beyond mere technicalities to ensure that justice is not only done but also seen to be done.

In conclusion, these cases offer valuable insights into the intricacies of civil litigation, the importance of following due process, and the courts’ commitment to ensuring justice. As legal professionals, it’s imperative to be aware of these principles and their implications in practice. It helps in strategizing and making informed decisions when representing clients in similar disputes.

Key takeaways based on the above to bring a successful claim of fraud and misrepresentation in Pakistan

 here are the key takeaways for bringing a successful claim of fraud and misrepresentation in a legal setting:

1. Adequate Evidence:

  • The cornerstone of a successful claim is robust and concrete evidence. Mere allegations or assertions won’t suffice. It’s crucial to gather all pertinent documents, witness testimonies, and any other relevant evidence to substantiate the claim of fraud and misrepresentation.

2. Timely Action:

  • Limitation periods play a vital role. It’s essential to act promptly and within any statutory timeframes when alleging fraud. Delays can jeopardise the validity of the claim, even if it has merit.

3. Due Process and Procedure:

  • Adhering to the correct legal procedures is paramount. This includes ensuring all relevant parties are properly notified, following court protocols, and ensuring filings are accurate and timely. Ignoring due process can lead to a dismissal or weakening of the claim.

4. Clear Establishment of Harm:

  • It’s essential to clearly demonstrate how the fraud or misrepresentation caused harm or detriment. The courts will look for a direct correlation between the alleged misconduct and any damages or losses incurred.

5. Knowledge and Reliance:

  • For a successful claim, one must show that they relied upon the fraudulent representation and that such reliance led to a specific harm or loss. It’s also beneficial to demonstrate that the opposing party knew, or should have reasonably known, that their representation was false.

6. Avoidance of Alternative Remedies:

  • As highlighted by the doctrine of election of remedies, once a legal remedy is chosen and pursued, it might preclude the pursuance of alternative remedies. Therefore, it’s crucial to strategise appropriately at the outset and decide on the most suitable legal route.

7. Inherent Jurisdiction:

  • Courts have inherent powers to ensure justice is delivered. Being aware of these powers can be advantageous, especially in situations where typical procedural routes may not provide adequate remedies.

8. Expert Witnesses:

  • In certain situations, expert testimonies can bolster a claim of fraud, especially when the misrepresentation pertains to specialised knowledge areas. Consider engaging experts when the situation warrants.

9. Continuous Monitoring:

  • Fraud claims can be intricate, and the situation may evolve. It’s essential to continuously monitor the case, gather new evidence if it emerges, and adjust the legal strategy as needed.

In essence, while the legal landscape can be challenging, a meticulous approach, combined with timely action and robust evidence, can enhance the prospects of a successful claim of fraud and misrepresentation.

Where courts have used inherent jurisdiction to deliver justice in cases of Misrepresentation and Fraud 

Recent cases show several  instances where courts have employed their inherent jurisdiction to ensure justice in the face of allegations of misrepresentation and fraud.

1. Citation: 2023 PLD 275 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

  • Matter: The petitioner withdrew his suit based on a compromise, but the cheque facilitating this compromise was dishonoured. The petitioner’s application under S.12(2) combined with S.151, C.P.C. was accepted by the Trial Court, but the revisional court set it aside.
  • Inherent Jurisdiction Exercised: The Trial Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under S. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, highlighting that the court’s role is to protect the valuable rights of the parties. The court emphasised the importance of looking beyond technicalities when valuable rights are at stake.
  • Outcome: The higher court noted that an application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. can indeed be converted into an application under S. 151, C.P.C. for the cause of justice, especially when rights are infringed based on orders obtained through deceit.

2. Citation: 2023 CLC 782 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

  • Matter: The issue revolved around the use of inherent powers to convert a suit into an application under S.12(2), C.P.C.
  • Inherent Jurisdiction Exercised: The court highlighted the doctrine that the decree obtained by fraud cannot deprive the Court of its jurisdiction to decide it as an application under S.12(2) of the C.P.C., if such jurisdiction is otherwise available under the law.
  • Outcome: The court reaffirmed that, in the interest of justice, procedural norms can be adapted, especially if it can prevent miscarriage of justice due to fraud or misrepresentation.

3. Citation: 2023 CLC 1157 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

  • Matter: The appellant/defendant challenged his dispossession based on the concealment of a settlement fact by the bank.
  • Inherent Jurisdiction Exercised: While not directly invoking inherent powers, the court emphasised the principle that one cannot be deprived of their rights (in this case, property) solely based on limitation when fraud is in play.
  • Outcome: The court leaned towards the side of justice, implying that when substantial rights are at stake, procedural limitations can be sidestepped, especially in the face of deceit.

The above citations discussed in this article underscore the courts’ willingness to invoke inherent powers to ensure that justice isn’t thwarted by technicalities, especially when fraud or misrepresentation is evident. These inherent powers serve as a safeguard against the misuse of legal procedures and act as a testament to the principle that justice should prevail above all.

By The Josh and Mak Team

Josh and Mak International is a distinguished law firm with a rich legacy that sets us apart in the legal profession. With years of experience and expertise, we have earned a reputation as a trusted and reputable name in the field. Our firm is built on the pillars of professionalism, integrity, and an unwavering commitment to providing excellent legal services. We have a profound understanding of the law and its complexities, enabling us to deliver tailored legal solutions to meet the unique needs of each client. As a virtual law firm, we offer affordable, high-quality legal advice delivered with the same dedication and work ethic as traditional firms. Choose Josh and Mak International as your legal partner and gain an unfair strategic advantage over your competitors.

error: Content is Copyright protected !!