' Through this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the vires of impugned judgment and decree dated 13-5-1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh dismissing the appeal filed by petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 9-4-1995, passed by learned Civil Judge, Muzaffargarh, whereby he accepted the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Filed by respondents Nos.1 to 4.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that petitioners filed a suit for specific performance of contract dated 13-5-1967 executed by Ali Muhammad father of respondents Nos.1 to 4 for handing over 80 Kanals of allotted land to the petitioners situated in Chak No.4/4-R, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh.
Abdul Hameed general attorney of Muhammad Ali appeared before the Court on 12-5-1984 and made a statement that compromise had been effected between the parties, therefore, he had no objection if suit of the petitioners was decreed. In view of said statement learned Senior Civil Judge decreed the suit on the same day i.e. 12-5-1984. On 20-6-1994 Muhammad Ali, father of respondents Nos.1 to 4 preferred an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Praying therein that previous judgment and decree dated 12-5-1984 be recalled. However, on 30-10-1984, Ali Muhammad himself appeared before the Court and stated that he had no objection to the decree dated 12-5-1984. Therefore, application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was dismissed as withdrawn vide order, dated 8-12-1984 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Muzaffargarh. Subsequently, another application under section 12(2) was moved on 23-9-1986 by respondents Nos.1 to 4, wherein written reply was tiled and the learned trial Court out of pleadings of parties formulated the following issues:--
(i) Whether this application is not maintainable in view of preliminary objections Nos.1, 2 and 7 of the written reply of the respondents? OPR
(ii) Whether the petitioners have got no locus standi to institute this application? OPR
(iii) Whether the petitioners are estopped from their words and conduct to bring this application?
OPR
(iv) Whether the impugned decree, judgment and compromise dated 12-5-1984 in Case No.440/76 is illegal, based on fraud, deception and misrepresentation and void on the grounds mentioned in para. No.4 of the petition? OPA
(v) Relief.
' Evidence was produced by the parties and consequently the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was accepted vide order dated 9-4-1995 passed by learned Civil Judge, Muzaffargarh. Being aggrieved petitioners preferred an appeal, which was dismissed vide order, dated 13-5-1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh. Hence this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that judgments and decrees of both the learned Courts below are the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence and record which has caused grave prejudice to the rights of petitioners. That respondents Nos.1 to 4 were estopped by their conduct to repeat the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. As the matter had been decided amongst the parties on 30-10-1984 which had attained finality due to their own conduct and Iqrarnama placed on file. That the principle of res judicata applies to the Court with full grip of law.
He has relied on Qamar-ud-Din v. Muhammad Din and others PLD 2001 SC 518.
4. Respondents Nos.1 to 4 have already conceded the claim of petitioner vide order, dated 8-3- 2000. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.5 to 9 submits that petitioners got a fraudulent decree through application under section 12(2), C.P.C. From the learned Civil Judge, Muzaffargarh vide judgment dated 9-4-1995, which was wrongly upheld by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 13-5-1996. That the petitioners earlier filed instant writ petition which was disposed of vide order, dated 8-3-2000 in which they had not been made a party. He has relied on Muhammad Ibrahim v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and another PLD 1966 Lah. 396 wherein it has been held that failing to make a necessary party in spite of knowledge writ petition was not competent and instant writ petition is also not maintainable on the point of misjoinder of the party i.e. Province of the Punjab and non-joinder of the applicant. Further submits that writ petition against revisional order is not competent and relies on Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others PLD 1974 SC 139; Muhammad Bakhsh v. Muhammad Ali 1984 SCMR 504; Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah PLD 1994 SC 291 and Rana Mamoon Rasheed v. Kokab Noorani Okarvi and others PLD 1999 Kar.
257.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. The predecessor- in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 4 was allotted the disputed land under Bara Scheme and on completion of the terms and conditions proprietary rights of 10 acres out of total land i.e. 20 acres through Conveyance-deed No.918 dated 12-5-1980 were conferred upon him, who on the same day sold his land to Hassan Muhammad and Muhammad Imran (petitioners in application under section 12(2), C.P.C. The declaratory suit filed against Ali Muhammad predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 4 by the present petitioners was decreed on 12-5-1984 in view of statement of Abdul Majeed son of Rehmat Ali the alleged attorney of Ali Muhammad, the predecessor-in- interest of respondents and the said decree passed in favour of petitioners was assailed being illegal, ultra vires, void, ineffective and against the rights of respondents and also on the ground that at the time of impugned decree said Abdul Majeed the alleged attorney of Ali Muhammad was having no authority because ten power of attorney executed in his favour stood cancelled on 7-4-1984 and the respondents were never served nor heard by the learned trial Court and the predecessor-in-interest of respondents had sold his right in favour of Hassan Muhammad and Muhammad Imran, who were necessary party to the suit. The learned trial Court after giving issue wise finding accepted the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. And observed that as it is well- established that fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings so, any superstructure based on foundation of fraudulent obtained certificate had to be demolished to the ground. Revision petition against the judgment dated 9-4-1995 was also dismissed. No illegality, material irregularity and jurisdictional flaw has been pointed out in the impugned judgments by learned counsel for the petitioners. Instant writ petition being devoid of force is dismissed. No order as to costs.