' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- On 14-2-2006 the petitioners filed ,an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. For setting aside of the judgment and decree, dated 29-9-2004 of a learned Additional District Judge, Bhakkar whereby he affirmed the judgment and decree, dated 24-1-2003 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit filed by respondents Nos.1 to 3 against respondents Nos.4 and 5. This suit was filed on 20-6-1996 questioning the cancellation of Lot No,99 measuring 1200 Kanals which was allotted to their predecessor-in-interest in 1953. While the suit was pending the petitioners filed an application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. Claiming that they are lessee in possession of the land and as such necessary party. This application was dismissed on 11-11-1996. A revision filed was dismissed on 19-11-1997 by Additional District Judge, Bhakkar. Thereafter, the suit was decreed and the decree affirmed as noted above and consequently, the application under section 12(2), C.P.C.
Was filed. The application was contested by respondents Nos.1 to 3 and issues were framed. At this stage an application was filed under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. For rejection of the application which was contested but the application was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge on 22-7- 2006 who has rejected the application filed by, the petitioner under section 12(2), C.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the grounds for rejection w,e,f, the earlier dismissal of the application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. Are of no avail. According to him the learned Additional District Judge has passed the order in violation of the settled rules that for purposes of Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Only the plaint and in the present case only the application could have been looked into.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, apart from supporting the impugned orders for reasons recorded therein refers to several other documents including judgments passed in a suit filed by the petitioners for the same relief. According to him other authentic documents can be looked into by the learned trial Court while examining the plaint/petition.
4. I have examined the several documents appended with this civil revision and also those filed on record by respondents Nos.1 to 3. I find that primarily the petition has been .Rejected on the ground that the petitioners were not allowed to intervene in the suit when it was pending. Reference has also been made to some observations made by this Court while dealing with an interim matter.
After examining the records I am constrained to observe that although the learned Additional District Judge has referred to and relied upon the order dismissing the application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. And also the order dismissed the revision. However, apparently the contents of the said orders have not been gone in. The learned trial Court proceeded to dismiss the application filed by the petitioners under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. Vide order, dated 11-11-1996 with the reasoning that since, the applicants are claiming to be lessees under the Provincial Government, who is already a party, the said Government will take care of the interest of the petitioners as well. While the revision was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 19-11-1997 finding revision to be not competent against an order refusing to implead the petitioners as party. I also find that the learned Additional District Judge has observed that the application has been filed after lapse of ten years and is barred by time. While so observing he simply lost sight of the fact that the final judgment within the meaning of section 12(2), C.P.C. Being challenged by the petitioners was passed on 24-9-2004 whereas the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was filed in the year 2006 and by all means was within time as held by the Honorable Supreme Court and this Court in several judgments that the limitation is three years.
5. Thereafter, the learned Additional District Judge proceeded to record some findings of fact holding that the petitioners are not allotters neither are they lessees and being tender-holders are not entitled to conferment of proprietary rights. I find that the only thing missing in the impugned orders are the contents of the application filed by the petitioners.. Without making any comments I find that the said contents could not have been determined in the manner done by the learned Additional District Judge without reference thereto.
6 . I however, agree with the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 to 3 that the learned Additional District Judge could have looked E into documents other than the plaint/petition itself provided they are authentic as held by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of S.M.
Shafi Ahmad Zaidi through Legal Heirs v. Malik Hassan Ali Khan (Moin) through Legal Heirs 2002 SCM R 338.
7. Now both the parties are referring me to several judgments passed earlier. The petitioners are stating that a regular suit filed by the respondents had earlier been dismissed and similar allegation is being made by the respondents. They have placed the judgments on record. These however, need to be examined by the learned Additional District Judge. However, I am in complete agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioners that for the reasons recorded in the impugned order the case of rejection under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Is not made out. This civil revision accordingly is allowed. The impugned order, dated 22-7-2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge is set aside. The result would be that the application filed by the respondents for the rejection of petition under section 12(2), C.P.C. Will be deemed to be pending.
Both the parties shall filed the certified copies of the documents being relied upon by them respectively on the file of the trial Court. These will be examined. The parties will be heard and the application will be decided afresh.