' HAMID FAROOQ DURRANI, J.---The respondent Mst. Safeena Jan filed a suit against the petitioner on 17-9-1997. The claimcontained in the plaint was in terms that the plaintiff/respondent was owner of Houses Nos. 67 and 68 situated in the area of Khokhar, Tehsil and District Abbottabad through registered deed, dated 23-5-1990. It was alleged that the defendant/petitioner, who was owner of adjacent house No,69, had no right to interfere in the possession and ownership of the plaintiff/respondent, therefore, a decree for permanent injunction was prayed for through the suit.
2. The petitioner/defendant was put on notice and was proceeded against ex parte on 30-9-1997.
Thereafter, ex parte evidence was recorded and the suit was finally decreed on 26-11-1999. The petitioner applied for setting aside the ex parte decree on 15-9-2000 which application was dismissed, after contest by the other side, on 3-7-2001. An appeal thereon was preferred which also could not find favor and was dismissed on 22-10-2002.
3. The petitioner, it was alleged, on 10-1-2003 gained the knowledge of institution of two suits by therespondent/plaintiff prior to Suit No,191/1, filed against the petitioner. The said suits were regarding the same property and were already disposed of before the institution of Suit No,191/I . As the said fact was not mentioned in the third suit (filed against the petitioner), an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was tiled by the petitioner before the learned Court which decided the appeal preferred against the order of dismissal of application for setting aside ex parte decree. The said application was dismissed in limine, with costs, on 1-2-2003 by the learned District Judge, Abbottabad. Aggrieved thereby the revision petition in hand was brought on 4-2-2003.
4. Learned counsel for the parties heard and relevant record perused.
5. It is found that the application under section 12(2) C.P.C. Was filed by the petitioner herein on the grounds that the plaintiff/respondent suppressed the fact of having filed two suits previously regarding the A property in dispute and that the respondent after obtaining an ex parte decree against the petitioner, was attempting to illegally occupy the house owned by the petitioner, in execution of the said decree.
6. The record reveals that respondent had earlier filed a suit on 29-5-1990 against one Mst.
Shaheen Akhtar dr/o Imran. The said suit contained a prayer for grant of decree of permanent injunction against the defendant therein while the suit property was house No,67 situated in Khokhar, Tehsil and District Abbottabad. That suit was, however, dismissed as withdrawn on 7-6- 1992. The petitioner was apparently not related with the said litigation in any manner whatsoever.
The second suit was filed by Mst. Safina Jan respondent on 8-2-1996 against one Abdul Latif son of Mir Zaman for grant of a declaratory decree ofownership in respect of houses Nos.67 and 68 situated in Khokhar, Abbottabad. This suit was, however, dismissed for non-prosecution on 5-10- 2000. In the subsequent suit to the petitioner did not figure out in any capacity.
7. As far as the non-mentioning of the factum about the institution of the above mentioned suits, in the plaint of Suit No,191/1 filed against the petitioner is concerned, the record is abundantly clear on the point that the said fact, even if mentioned, would not have affected the merits of the third suit.
Besides, the respondent had nowhere denied the filing of the said two suits nor had stated contrary to the said facts at any stage. The decree passed ex parte against the petitioner was not arrived at by the learned trial Court due to the alleged concealment of fact.
8. Regarding the other ground asserted by the petitioner in terms of his alleged dispossession in execution of the decree passed against him, suffice it to state that the matter could conveniently be agitated before the learned Court executing the decree in question.
9. There is yet another aspect of he matter which requires to be looked into by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. While dealing with the matter in the first round, the learned District Judge, Abbottabad had only disallowed the appeal of the petitioner through which the dismissal of application for setting aside ex parte decree was questioned. The decree itself, as such was not varied, modified or interfered with in any manner whatsoever by the learned appellate Court. The application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was, therefore, not competently filed before the said learned Court.
10. For what has been discussed above the petition in hand is dismissed being meritless. The parties are, however, left to bear their respective costs.
Revision .