Brief facts giving rise to the present petitioner under section 12(2), C.P.C. Are; that in response to an advertisement published in newspaper by Administrator, Municipal Committee, Sahiwal for the post of PTC Teacher. The petitioner appeared for interview on 9-4-1995 before the District Recruitment Committee and was selected. Before issuance of appointment letter, Provincial Government imposed ban on recruitment in all departments. Later on, in Writ Petition No.6592 of 1997, an order was passed that ban would not effect selection made on earlier to its imposition and issuance of appointment would not effect in such cases.
2. The said judgment of the High Court was brought to the notice of respondent No.2, through an application, wherein the petitioner requested for issuance of appointment letter to her but her request was turned down by respondent No.2. Aggrieved of the order of respondent, filed Writ Petition No.11735 of 2000 for issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondents to issue appointment letter to her because she qualified all the formalities and her name was included in the list of successful candidates.
3. The said writ of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Judge-in-Chamber vide judgment, dated 25-9-2001. Aggrieved of that she filed I.C.A. No.122 of 2001. The same was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court holding that there was no recommendations of the Recruitment Committee for appointment of the petitioner as PTC Teacher along with three others, as the alleged letter of recommendation signed only by one member and was not signed by the Chairman and others senior member of the District Selection Committee. No letter of appointment was issued to the petitioner and to the other three candidates who were declared successful in the interview.
4. After almost three years of order dated 11-4-2002, petitioner filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. (C.M. No.581 of' 2005) on 8-4-2005 for setting aside order dated 29-5-2001 passed in Writ Petition No.11735 of 2000 and order, dated 11-4-2001 in Intra-Court Appeal No.122 of 2001.
5. It is argued that after hectic efforts the petitioner was able to unearth the truth to expose the false and fraudulent stance taken by the respondent. Due to their misstatement the writ petition as well as I.C.A. Were dismissed. In fact the letter of recommendation and minute of the meeting of District Recruitment Committee dated 9-4-2005 was signed by all the three members. A photocopy of the same was given to thepetitioner by Mr. Muhammad Nisar Pirzada, Advocate duly attested by him. Further submits that, by comparison of the two copies one filed with writ petition and the copy supplied by the above said Advocate, it is clear that the copy earlier produced in writ petition was a copy of the recommendation when it was not duly signed by the two senior members. Since the copy bearing signatures of all the three members was intentionally withheld by the respondent with mala fide intention. The report and parawise comments tiled in the writ petition were incorrect and suffered from suppression/concealment of material facts. Order in Writ Petition No.11735 of 2000 and I.C.A. No.122 of 2001 were obtained by the respondent by playing fraud and making misstatement in the Court. Also submits that despite best efforts the petitioner could not obtain certified copy of the document dated 9-4-1995. Finally submits that order, dated 11-4- 2002 passed in I.C.A. No.122 of 2001 and 29-5-2001 passed in Writ Petition No.11735 of 2000 be set aside and writ petition be heard afresh and decided on merits.
6. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that application under section 12(2), C.Y.C. Has been filed after lapse of three years and is hit by limitation thus, laches and is liable to be dismissed. The alleged photocopy of the merit list/minutes of the meeting of Recruitment Committee dated 9-4-1995 bearing signature of all the three members is not true copy of the document. No such document is available in the record of the respondents. The photocopy is attested by an Advocate, who also does not possess original or duly attested copy of the same, hence, the same is not admissible in evidence under Article 74 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order because it does not fulfil the condition laid down therein; further argues that previous photocopy annexed with the Writ Petition No.11735 of 2000 signed by one member was produced by the petitioner herself and placed reliance on the same. Writ petition and I.C.A. Were dismissed by this Court mainly on the ground that the so-called merit list produced by the petitioner was not signed by the other two senior members of the Committee. Petitioner had now changed her stance, that the said merit list was produced by the respondent cannot be allowed to take premium of his fault and follies.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the law on the subject.
The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that at the time of decision of writ petition the learned Judge-in-Chamber decided the writ petition considering the document malafidely supplied to the petitioner by the respondent signed by one member of the recommendation committee, whereas, later on the said recommendation/document was signed by all the three members of the Recruitment Committee and this was done deliberately by the respondents to get a decision in their favour. This contention was denied by learned, counsel for the respondents. Photocopy of the recommendation placed on the record showing to have been signed by all the three members of the Committee is not certified or a copy officially issued by respondent No.2 and authenticity of the same was denied by the respondent. The source of the Advocate who issued the attested copy is also not authentic and is not reliable. Thus, prima facie no case for 12(2), C.P.C. Is made out.
8. It is requirement of section 12(2), C.P.C. That full particulars of the fraud and misrepresentation must be given in the application moved to the Court which passed the final order or decree. Here in the instant case petitioner had failed to give particular of the alleged fraud and misrepresentation in the petition. It is not case of the petitioner that respondent obtained the order by practicing fraud upon the Court nor any fraud or misrepresentation is alleged in connection with the proceeding of the Court. The provision of section 12(2), C.P.C. Would be attracted only when fraud or misrepresentation is alleged in connection with the A proceeding of the Court and not prior to its initiation or after decision of the Court. Reliance is placed on Lal Din and another v. Muhammad Ibrahim 1993 SCM R 710; Rehmat Ullah v. Ali Muhammad and another 1983 SCM R 1064; Hyesons Sugar Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Consolidated Sugar Mills Ltd. And others 2003 CLD 996 and WAPDA through Chairman and 5 others v. Messrs Sea Gold Traders 2002 M LD 19, representation made to the Court which is deliberately false, amounts to fraud and would vitiate the order/decree subject to the exception that mere, falsity of claim to the knowledge of the person putting forward the claim would not be granted for setting aside the order or decree on the ground of fraud. Similarly the report and parawise comments submitted in the writ petition by the respondent were according to the record of the respondent and not in order to get the writ petition dismissed. In fact the copy of the letter/merit list alleged to be issued by the Recruitment Committee was not signed by the senior members of the Committee was filed by the petitioner herself. No document was submitted or produced by the respondent to defraud the Court. The difference between fraud and misrepresentation is one of knowledge and intention, "fraud" proceeds on the basis of fact or assertion or omission to assert such fact 13 with knowledge to its falsity, whereas in the context of "misrepresentation" assertion or its omission may lack both or intention. Reference in this context is placed on Salma Begum v. Collector, Land Acquisition and others 2003 CLC 1355 and Mobina Begum v. The Joint Secretary, Ministry of Religious and Minority Affairs, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others 1994 M LD 1441. As discussed above the respondent put their case according to the record and nothing was concealed from the Court at the time of decision of the writ petitioner. No case of fraud or misrepresentation with knowledge is made out in terms of section 12(2), C.P.C. Said to have been committed with regard to the proceedings of this Court.
9. So far as question of limitation is concerned, it is settled law that an application filed within three years of the date of knowledge is held to be within time. The petitioner had not disclosed the date on which she came to know about the alleged fraud or misrepresentation. In such eventuality the application beyond three C years of order dated 29-5-2001 filed on 8-4-2005 is beyond three years is barred by time.
10. In view of the facts discussed above, no case under section 12(2), C.P.C. Calling interference by this Court is made out. Both the C.Ms. Stand dismissed.