' RANA BHAGWANDAS, ACTG. CJ--- This appeal is directed against the office objections raised by the Institution Officer, returning the memo. Of application under section '12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code to the appellants.
2. One of the grounds which found favour with the Institution Officer appears to be that an application under section 12(2), Civil Procedure Code would not be maintainable as judgment once pronounced by this Court cannot be added to or altered subsequently, and that it amounts to second review petition which would again be not entertainable within the contemplation of Order XXVI, rule 9 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980.
3. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the appellants while Mr. Gulzarin Kayani, learned Advocate Supreme Court has entered appearance for the respondents.
4. It is not denied at the Bar that in appeal, learned District Judge had allowed the respondents' appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the appellants.
In civil revision, High Court affirmed and upheld the appeal Court judgment which was maintained by this Court in C.P.L.A. Vide judgment, dated 11-9-2006. Review petition filed by the appellants met the similar fate on 26-4-2007.
5. Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, learned Advocate Supreme Court states that an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Is filed on the premise that the respondents had committed fraud upon First Appellate Court by introducing a forged document and included it in the paper book submitted before this Court. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents unequivocally and candidly clarifies that indeed, the appellants were the petitioners before this Court and it were they who had filed the paper book before this Court, therefore, they cannot take undue advantage of their own wrong. Mr. Kayani is right in submitting that since main case has not been decided on the basis of alleged forged document, no strong ground for setting aside the judgment of this Court on the ground of so- called fraud or representation is made out.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made at the Bar and am of the considered view that after dismissal of the C.P.L.A. And review application ordinarily, an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Would not be entertainable. Furthermore, if a point has not been raised at the hearing of the petition and review stage before this Court, no new point of fact or law can be allowed to be urged in the proceedings under section 12(2), C.P.C.
7. Evidently, application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Appears to be frivolous and vexatious in nature filed with intent to prolong the proceedings and to harass the respondents, therefore, while dismissing this appeal, I would award a token cost of Rs,5,000 to the respondents for unnecessarily dragging them to this Court. This amount shall be deposited in the office for payment to the respondents within 15 days failing which it shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue.