2008 PLP 715 (MLD)

HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.

This civil revision is filed against the order, dated 19-11-2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot with a payer that the case be remanded to the learned Additional District Judge, Silakot for the decision on merits.

2. The learned counsel submits that the impugned matter revolves around the question of limitation because for filing application under section 12(2), C.P.C. the limitation is governed by Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908 whereas the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot has erred in holding that the application under section 12(2), C.F.C. after one and half years was not maintainable.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for L.Rs. of respondent No.2 supported the impugned order whereas the other respondents have not turned up and are proceeded against ex parte.

4. Arguments heard; available record perused.

5. The record reveals that a Civil Suit No.216 of 2003 was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Ist Class Sialkot on 13-11-1999 and the said suit was dismissed through judgment, dated 9-7-2003. The judgment of the learned Civil Judge was assailed in C.A. No.52 of 2003 before the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot on 8-8-2003 who confirmed the judgment of learned trial Court through judgment, dated 2-2-2005.

6. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no further appeal or revision was filed before this Court against the judgment of 2-2-2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot however, an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. was filed after a lapse of more than one and a half years. The learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot through the impugned order, dated 29-11-2006 considered each and every aspect of the matter and hold that, "the peti tioner has not challenged the validity of the judgments, dated 7-9-2003 and 2-2-2005 before the High Court so the judgment, dated 2-2-2005 stands operated against the petitioner." The learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot also held that the petitioner has clearly stated in the petition that the respondents obtained the judgment through fraud and misrepresentation but the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. is filed on 18-11-2006 despite the fact that learned trial Court passed the judgment on 7-9-2003 and the judgment of the appellate Court is dated 2-2-2005 meaning thereby that the petitioner has tried to frustrate the object of law by way of indulging in such like indecent litigation. I have perused the impugned order and I could not find any illegality in the same and as such the civil revision is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./S-216/L Petition dismissed.