M.A. SHAHID SIDDIQUI, J.--- This petition under Section 115, CPC has been preferred against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Chichawatni dated 19.2.2003, confirming the order of the learned Civil Judge dated 1.6.2002 on an application under Section 12(2), CPC filed by Falak Sher and six,others; who were defendants in a suit filed by Muhammad Nawaz (respondent) in the year 1992 for specific performance of agreement allegedly executed by Nasim Ahmad.
2. The dispute relates to a piece of land measuring 10 kanals situated in Chak No. 23/14-L, Tehsil Chichawatni. Admittedly, Nasim Ahmad was its owner. Muhammad Nawaz brought a suit on 29.7.1992 for specific performance of agreement allegedly executed on 31.3.1990 by Nasim Ahmad.
After the institution of the suit, Nasim Ahmad alienated the suit land in favour of the present petitioners through Mutation No. 436/476, dated 8.10.1992, therefore, Muhammad Nawaz had to file an amended plaint, impleading the present petitioners as defendants. Nasim Ahmad and the present petitioners (defendants Nos. 2 to 8), contested the suit. After the recording of the evidence of the plaintiff, in the said suit, the defendants not only failed to produce their evidence, but also failed to pursue the case. Consequently; the suit was decreed ex parte vide judgment dated 28.5.1995 by the learned Civil Judge, 1st Class, Chichawatni. The petitioners, who were defendants Nos. 2 to 8 in the said suit, instead of filing an application for setting aside of ex parte decree, made an application under Section 12(2), CPC, after a period of more than six years, i.e. On 26.7.2001, alleging therein that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff and Nasim Ahmad (defendant No. 1) approached them for a compromise and had promised to get the suit withdrawn. In view of the assurance, given by them, they did not pursue the case. They, therefore, prayed for setting aside the ex parte decree on the ground of misrepresentation. The respondent No. 1/decree-holder contested the application. The learned Trial Court, after making perusal of the original file, did not feel satisfy with the explanation, offered by the petitioners, and dismissed the application on 11.6.2002. This order of the learned Civil" Judge was not appealable but the petitioners challenged the same by way of an appeal, which the learned Additional District Judge, Chichawatni, after considering the merits of the case, dismissed on 19.2.2003, hence this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not controvert the position that the rejection of the application under Section 12(2), CPC was not appealable. However, its propriety could be challenged through a revision petition under Section 115, CPC. He submitted that the impugned order dated 19.2.2003 of the learned Additional District Judge, Chichawatni, may be treated as having been passed in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction and that the instant petition may be allowed to be challenged in the exercise of. Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
4. I have given serious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The facts of the case clearly show that the petitioners had failed to prosecute their cause; which resulted into an ex parte decree. The plea that they had been misled by the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 has been examined by the two Courts below and has not found favour. The petitioners have been grossly negligent in the prosecution of their cause. The concurrent findings of the two Courts below are neither illegal nor perverse, warranting interference by this Court, in any manner. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.