' C. Misc. Nos.760-C, 761-C of 2000 and 2 of 2004 ' BASHIR A. MUJAHID, J.---The petitioners have filed this petition under section 12(2), C.P.C. Read with section 151, C.P.C. For recalling of order dated 17-4-2000 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.365-D of 1984 whereby judgments and decree dated 5-6-1982 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sahiwal and that of learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal dated 15-2-2004 were set aside and the suit filed by the respondent was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case for disposal of the instant petition are that land measuring 190 Kanals and 17 Marlas situated in Revenue Estate of Sahag Para Chak No.106-D. Tehsil and District Pakpattan Sharif previously falling within the limits of District Sahiwal was allotted to one Ghulam son of Saghir for 20 years under "Well Sinking Scheme" on 30-12-1959. The allottee died on 25-7-1967. The Colonies Assistant vide his order dated 13-3-1975 resumed the tenancy. Appeal filed by the legal heirs of the allottee was accepted by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division vide order dated 3-3-1976 and order was also upheld by the Member Board of Revenue (Revenue) on 3-2-1977.
3. Muhammad Ishaq predecessor-ininterest of respondent& Nos.7-10 filed a suit challenging the order of Member Board of Revenue dated 3-2-1977 and that of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan dated 3-3-1976 through a civil suit for declaration. The suit was contested by the respondents/legal heirs of deceased allottee. The same was decreed by the Senior Civil Judge, Sahiwal, vide his judgment dated 5-6-1982. Upon appeal judgment and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sahiwal was upheld vide judgment and decree dated 15-2-1984 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal which was assailed through Civil Revision No.365-D of 1984 before this Court. The civil revision was allowed vide impugned judgment dated 17-4-2000 by setting aside the judgment of learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal as well as that of learned Senior Civil Judge, Sahiwal. Hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the Government had granted proprietary rights to Muhammad Ishaq through registered Sale-deed No.728 dated 14-4-1984 and on the basis of the said sale-deed Mutation No.91 was 'also sanctioned in his favour to the extent of 84 Kanals on 14-3-1985. However, out of the land measuring 106 Kanals and 17 Marlas was resumed by the Government. Muhammad Ishaque sold this land to Mst. Surria Begum daughter of Ahmad Din through Mutation No.85 dated 15-6-19(sic) who further transferred the land in the year 1983-84 in favour of Maryam Rasheed and one Muhammad Hussain. The said Muhammad Hussain transferred his land measuring 39 Kanals in favour of Abdul Rasheed applicant. The stand of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Muhammad Ishaq predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1-10 died on 16-12-1993 whose legal heirs were impleaded as respondents in the revision petition who were represented by Chaudhry Iqbal Abid, Advocate and it was in the knowledge of the revision petitioners that the land had been alienated by their predecessor-in- interest Muhammad Ishaque in the year 1984. The appeal filed against Muhammad Ishaq was dismissed on 15-2-1984. The applicant purchased the land on 14-4-1984. The purchase of the land was in knowledge of the revision petitioners but intentionally. Therefore, the revision petitioners had obtained the judgment in civil revision through misrepresentation and by concealment of facts. By placing reliance on:-
(1) Mst.Jameela Begum v. Muhammad Siddique 1999 CLC 1591;
(2) Abdul Sattar and others v. Ibrahim and others PLD 1992 Karachi 323;
(3) Jamil Akhtar v. Las Baba PLD 2003 SC 494
(4) Allah Bakhsh and others v. Province of Punjab and others 2002 SCMR 2002.
' It has been argued that the judgment and decree passed in civil revision on 17-4-2000 be recalled.
5. In response to the notice Noor Muhammad and Mst. Bashiran, respondents are present and they have opposed the petition.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants as well as the respondents present in person and examined the record.
' Section 12(2), C.P.C. Provides:-- "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 by final judgment, decree or order and not by a separate suit".
' Section 115, C.P.C. Reads as under:-- "The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears:--
(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or
(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or
(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity."
' From bare reading of section 115, C.P.C. It appears that the revisional Court has to see the legality or validity in the judgment passed by the lower Court. From the contents of the application moved by the petitioner no element of fraud or misrepresentation has been alleged to invoke the jurisdiction under section 12(2), C.P.C. As the revision petition was decided on law points after due contest and decree was not collusive. The petitioners claim to be bona fide purchaser of land but the .Golden principle is vendee-beware {{URDU TEXT}}. It was the duty of the petitioners to find out whether any litigation about the land is pending or not. He was not the necessary party to be impleaded in the revision petition which was in continuation of suit filed in the year 1977. The sale he claims in his favour during the pendency of litigation is hit by the principle of lis pendens. The case-law referred to by the learned counsel for the applicants is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, the applications are dismissed having no force.
However, the applicants may seek remedy available under the law against the persons from whom they purchased the land.