1991 PLP 791 (MLD)

Through this Constitutional petition, Din Muhammad and Haji Ata Muhammad seek declaration to the effect that the order, dated 30-6-1985 of the Civil Judge, Ist Class, Multan, and the judgment dated 27-11-1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, are without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The facts leading to this petition, briefly, are that on 28-1-1978, Din Muhammad and Haji Ata Muhammad, petitioners, filed a suit for the specific performance of an agreement to sell against Abdul Sattar, respondent No.15, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Multan, which was entrusted to Syed Riaz Hussain Shah, Civil Judge Ist Class, Multan. On the admitting statement made by Mirza Qaiser Abbad, general attorney of Abdul Sattar, and the statements of the plaintiffs, the suit was decreed on 3-5-1978. On 1-12-1981, Riaz Ahmad and others, respondents Nos.3 to 14, filed an application under section 12(2) of the C.P.C. for setting aside the judgment and decree, dated 3-5-1978 passed by Syed Riaz Hussain Shah, Civil Judge, Multan, on the ground of fraud and mis-representation, against Din Muhammad, Haji Ata Muhammad petitioners and Abdul Sattar, respondent No.15. This application was resisted and the trial Court framed the following issues:-- (1) Whether the petition is barred by limitation? (2) Whether the impugned decree, dated 3-5-1978 is illegal, void, against facts and liable to be set aside? The parties produced evidence. The trial Court accepted the application on 30-6-1985. Feeling aggrieved thereby, Din Muhammad and Ata Muhammad filed a revision, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan on 27-11-1990. Hence this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that since respondents Nos.3 to 12 were not party to the suit for the specific performance of an agreement to sell, therefore, they could not have filed an application under section 12(2) of the C.P.C. for setting aside the judgment and decree passed in that suit. He relied on PLD 1985 Kar. 705.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners with care. I do not feel persuaded to agree with him. The relevant provisions of law may be reproduced advantageously:-- S.12(2), C.P.C.-- "Where a person challenges the validity of a judgment, decree or order on the plea of fraud, misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction, he shall seek his remedy by making an application to the Court which passed the final judgment, decree or order and not by a separate suit." A bare reading of the provisions of law reproduced above, will show that the words judgment-debtor or defendant or party to the suit have not been used therein. The word "a person" used therein is of great significance and it is not to be narrowly interpreted so as to restrict it to refer to only a judgment-debtor or his successors, but it should be read to include any person even though not a party to the decree. Reliance may be placed on 1984 SCMR 586 and P L D 1984 Lah. 396.

5. Pursuant to the above discussion, there being no merit, the petition is dismissed in limine. AA./D-68/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.