' KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J.--- The petitioners are vendees-defendants in a pre-emption suit which was decreed in favor of the respondents throughout, right up to this Court. The review application filed by the petitioner against the judgment of this Court dated 10-2-2003 passed in C.P. No,3168/L of 2002 was also dismissed on 4-8-2004. The respondent's pre-emptor succeeded on the ground that being co-sharer and owners in the estate enjoyed superior right of pre- emption. After failing in this Court it was on/or about 30-1-2005 that the petitioners filed application under section 12(2), C.P.C. For "setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 1-8-2002 passed in R.F.A. No,94 of 1998 and the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation", in the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench.
2. According to Mr. A.K. Dogar, learned Advocate Supreme Court, in a nutshell the basis of the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was that the respondents-plaintiffs did not become owners as pleaded by them in paragraph 1 of the plaint because Mst. Qamar Azeemi their seller was herself not the owner. He states that by the time Mst. Qamar Azeemi could transfer land to the respondents-plaintiffs, the petitioners themselves had become owners in the estate. It may be noted that in the written statement the superior right of the plaintiffs-preemptors had been denied by pleading that the petitioner-defendant being tenants of the suit-land enjoyed much better right to retain the land. According to the written statement, in reply to para.1 of the plaint, the petitioner had stated that Mst. Qamar Azeemi was the owner of the suit-land.
3. Mr. Dogar, in his usual vehement manner, has contended that the admission by the petitioners as to the land being owned by Mst. Qamar Azeemi was based on ignorance and incorrect information and this ignorance can furnish valid basis for invoking the jurisdiction under section 12(2), C.P.C. He has cited case-law which describes the various situations in which the powers under section 12(2), C.P.C. Can be exercised. However, to a specific question as to whether he can cite a case wherein power under section 12(2), C.P.C. Has been exercised in a situation where a party made wrong/incorrect assertion in its pleadings either through ignorance or inadvertence or otherwise, Mr. Dogar could not cite any judgment. He stated that if time is given he could make efforts to find one.
4. To us the proposition canvassed is too naive to merit any serious consideration. Out of the pleadings the Court framed the issues and tried them. The verdict given by the trial Court has been examined by the High Court as well as by this Court and same has been finally upheld with the dismissal of the review application by this Court. The decree has attained finality. This finality cannot be taken away by urging that these petitioners were ignorant of some facts. No litigant can be permitted to plead his ignorance or lack of information to advance his case. Mr. Dogar is not correct in submitting that the improper or incorrect assertion affects the jurisdiction of the Court.
Jurisdiction on Courts is conferred by law and does> not depend on the litigants/parties stating correct facts in their pleadings. At best, as laid down in Order XLVII, rule 1(c), C.P.C. Discovery of new and important matter or evidence, subject to the condition laid therein, may provide a ground for review of decree. If what Mr. Dogar is suggesting is accepted, there will be no end to litigation and any party can launch a fresh round by pleading revelation of facts and his own ignorance and lack of diligence.
5. This petition has no merit. Refusing leave, we dismiss the same.