' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.--- By this consolidated judgment we propose to decide the above titled two civil petitions involving common questions of law and facts.
2. These petitioners have arisen from two pre-emption suits one filed by Hafiz Muhammad minor through his guardian Muhammad Bux and the other filed by Pir Bux deceased, predecessor-in- interest, of the present respondents. An ex parte decree was passed in favor of Pir Bux after remand of the case by the High Court in Civil Revision No,565 of 1969. The petitioner made an application for setting aside the ex parte decree which was dismissed for non-prosecution. An application was moved for restoration of the said application which too was dismissed on 26-4-1977. Appeal filed by the petitioners against the said order was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan, on 6-7-1978 against which Civil Revision No,194 of 1978 filed by the petitioners before the High Court was also dismissed on 15-3-1997. During the pendency of this civil revision, an application bearing No,2/C of 1989 under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was filed alleging that Hafiz Muhammad was a non-existent person and the case was being prosecuted by one Shahzad Ahmed in his name. The said application was dismissed by the High Court through judgment, dated 17-6-1989 against which Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,1045 of 1989 was filed which was disposed of with the observation that the matter raised through the said application about non-existence of Hafiz Muhammad may be raised and agitated at the time of disposal of Civil Revision. The Civil Revision was dismissed on 5-3-1997. The application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Came up for hearing before the learned Judge in the High Court who dismissed the same by observing that Hafiz Muhammad was also known as Shahzad Ahmed.
3. The petitioners also moved application bearing No,415/C of 1997 in C.P. No,565 of 1969 in which the case was remanded in the first round of litigation, alleging that Hafiz Muhammad was a non- existent. This was also dismissed through the impugned order by observing that the same was not entertainable after a lapse of 25 years.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners on coming to know about the alleged fraud of Shahzad Ahmed that the suit in the fictitious name of Hafiz Muhammad was being prosecuted by him, moved an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. In the year 1989, therefore, the application could not have been held to be barred by time as period of limitation, even under Article 181 of the Limitation Act, would start from the date of acquisition of knowledge of fraud.
5. We are afraid the contention of the learned counsel in the fact and circumstances of the case is misconceived. It is apparent on the face of record i,e, the title of the petitions that both the parties are shown as residents of the same village. We are unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel that the petitioners for such a long time did not come to know that Hafiz Muhammad was non-existent
6. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in these petitions which are accordingly dismissed and leave refused.