1999 PLP 2096 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 29th June, 1998. Briefly stated the facts of this "Review Petition" are that the petitioners, in the first instance, had filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Charsadda (Name not given in the judgment) wherein she had prayed for a declaration to the effect that the judgments and decrees granted by the then Civil Judge, Charsadda (Name not given) on 13-5-1989 and the then Civil Judge (Name not given) on 3-9-1983, be declared ineffective as against the right of the petitioners and defendants Nos. 12 to

18. In other words that petitioners had sought mainly the annulment of the two judgments referred to above.

2. Since the insertion of section 12(2), C.P.C. a separate civil suit could not be instituted, therefore, the trial Court converted the suit into an application under section 12(2),C.P.C. which is to the following effect: -- "(2) 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 "

3. The abovementioned order of the trial Court was not challenged by the petitioners and resultantly it became final.

4. According to section 12(2), C.P.C. application could only be filed in the Court which had passed the final judgment/decree/order, therefore, the trial Court returned the said application to the petitioners with the direction to submit/present the same before a Court of competent jurisdiction.

5. The petitioner challenged the validity of the said order by filing a Revision Petition No.576 of 1993 (Mst. Zojan v. Muhammad Hassan) which was dismissed by my learned brother Mr. Justice Nawabzada Saleem Dil Khan, Vide; his order dated 3-7-1995. Hence this review petition.

6. Syed Muhammad Shah Badshah Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Fateh Muhammad Khan Advocate for the respondents present and heard for about one and half hour. Record of the case perused carefully.

7. It is indeed surprising that on the one hand, the petitioners had prayed for setting aside the judgments/decrees of the Courts as mentioned above and on the other hand she has stated that since she had not alleged any fraud misrepresentation or lacking of jurisdiction, therefore, her suit should not have been converted into an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. It, therefore, follows that she is blowing hot and cold in the same breath because her contentions contradict each other.

8. It may be stated here that it was probably for this reason that His Lordship Mr. Justice Nawabzada Saleem Dil Khan, by his order dated 3-7-1995, had dismissed the revision petition finding it to be without any merit.

9. Admittedly, the review petitions are filed under section -114, C.P.C read with Order 47, C.P.C. The Courts have inherent power to review and set aside the judgments which are delivered without jurisdiction -or have been A obtained by practising fraud and the main aim of the power of "review" is to enable the correction of error or to prevent the injustice done by the Court itself. Although the granting of a review is in the discretion of the Court but it has to be exercised upon sound judicial principle.

10. Keeping in view the above principle of granting review I have gone through the record of the case, with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, and the impugned judgment of my learned brother (Mr. Justice Nawabzada Saleem Dil Khan) dated 3-7-1995 and am constrained to remark that the learned counsel for the petitioner has miserably failed to convince me as to what illegality or material. irregularity has been committed by the said Hon'ble 8 Judge which needs correction. Similarly, he has failed to show that the impugned order is without jurisdiction or was the result of fraud,, and, thus, a nullity in the eyes of law and resultantly liable to be set aside/reviewed.

11. This review petition is without any substance and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Q.M.H./233/P Petition dismissed