S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J. --- This writ petition filed by Muhammad Ismail, petitioner, seeks to challenge the revisional order dated 6.5.2008 passed by Mr. M. Sheraz Kiyyani, learned Additional District Judge, Hafizabad whereby he set aside not only the order dated 18.12.2008, passed by Mr. Khyzer Hayat Gondal, learned Senior Civil Judge, Hafizabad but also the judgment/decree dated 13.6.2000, passed by Ch. Shahid Naseer, the earlier Senior Civil Judge, Hafizabad.
2. This case has a chequered history. The dispute relates to a plot of 14 marlas i.e. 14/80 Hissa of 4 kanals situate in Khewat No. 1435, Khatoni No. 3017, Khasra No. 1678 in Mauza Ghari Awan, Tehsil and District Hafizabad. The background of the case is that Muhammad Ismail, writ petitioner had on 20.1.1987 filed a suit against Muhammad Anwar, respondent No. 2 for specific performance of alleged contract dated 17.3.1986, on payment of total consideration of Rs. 1,20,000/-. On 6.7.1988, the suit was sought to be withdrawn from before the learned Duty Judge without any reservation as to filing of the suit afresh. On 23.7.1988, the suit was dismissed as withdrawn in the light of the statement of Malik Muhammad Jamil Awan, Advocate representing Muhammad Ismail. Instead of filing a fresh suit, Muhammad Ismail filed an application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. On 13.5.1998 for setting aside the order of dismissal dated 23.7.1988. It was alleged that the suit was withdrawn because Muhammad Anwar, respondent No. 2 herein had made promise to perform his part of the contract. It was also alleged that the withdrawal of the suit was the result of fraudulent promise made by Muhammad Anwar. It was also claimed that the learned Duty Judge had no authority to record the statement with regard to the withdrawal of the suit. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also moved,. On 8.6.2000, Mr. Muhammad Afzal. Cheema, Advocate got recorded his statement to the effect that Muhammad Anwar had since received the consideration amount of the plot in question and that he would have no objection if the suit filed by the writ petitioner (plaintiff) was decreed. The suit was then decreed by 'Ch. Shahid Naseer, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hafizabad on 13.6.2000, without adverting to the pungency of the provisions of Order )0(111, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. In the afore- said proceedings under Section 12(2), C.P.C., Rehmat All respondent No. 1 herein was not made a party although the suit brought by Rehmat All against same Muhammad Anwar for possession through specific performance with regard to the same plot stood already decreed on 19.10. 1993 on the conceding statement made by Muhammad Anwar. Pursuant to the consent decree mutation had also been recorded and sanctioned in favour of Rehmat Ali. This fact was concealed by the writ petitioner as also by Muhammad Anwar.
3. The order dated 19.12.2007, passed by Mr. Khyzer Hayat Gondar, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hafizabad whereby he had partly allowed the application for amendment of a petition filed under Section 12(2); C.P.C. By Rehmat Ali through a special attorney challenging the validity of the judgment/decree dated 13.6.2000, was agitated in revision. The said application was filed seeking the setting aside of the judgment/decree dated 13.6.2000, which was passed in favour of Muhammad Ismail.
4. The learned Additional District Judge accepted the revision petition holding that material facts were concealed to get the afore-mentioned judgment dated 13.6.2000; that Muhammad Ismail knew fully posted with the knowledge that on 13.6.2000, he was not the owner of the property in question and that he was fraudulently making a conceding statement. The learned Additional District Judge went deep into the history of the case and concluded in the light of the judicial record that Muhammad Ismail and Muhammad Anwar had collided with each other and had manoeuvred the afore-mentioned judgment dated 13 .6.2000 toeing the line of each other to the detriment of the interest of Rehmat Ali, who was not impleaded as a party.
5. It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the learned Additional District Judge, Hafizabad while sitting in revisional jurisdiction, had travelled beyond the scope of Section 115, C.P.C. And at all events, had no jurisdiction to set aside the judgment and decree dated 13.6.2000. According to learned counsel, at best, the case could have been remanded because the revision was filed against the order dated 19.12.2007, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hafizabad whereby he had partly accepted the application for amendment of an application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. Filed by Rehmat Ali, respondent No. 1 herein through his special attorney against the judgment and decree dated 13.6.2000. Reliance was placed on 2008 SCM R 236, 2007 CLC 1877, 1999 M LD 3038, PLD 2005 SC 775, 2007 CLD 1637, 1983 CLC 3140 and 2006 CLC 1018.
6. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents relying on 1993 M LD 486, 1994 CLC 2443, NLR 1995 Civil 330, 1982 CLC 55, 1993 CLC 918; 1992 CLC 2282, PLD 1973 SC 236, PLD 1982 SC 413, 1986 SCM R 1561 and PLJ 2003 Lah. 148, argued that the order passed by the learned Revisional Court dated 6.5.2008 was clothed with authority and that controversial questions of fact could not be gone into in the exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court.
7. I have gone through the case-law referred to by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the record appended with the writ petition from cover to cover. Findings were recorded by the learned Revisional Court in its impugned judgment dated 6.5.2008 that at the time of passage of the consent judgment dated 13.6.2000, material facts were actively concealed, in that, respondent Muhammad Anwar was not owner of the property in question, yet he was making a statement confessing judgment against him with regard to the same plot which stood decreed in favour of .Rehmat Ali, respondent No. 1 herein as back as 19.10.1993, which was followed by mutation. He was causing a circumstance to exist, which to his active knowledge did not exist. The afore-mentioned findings were based on judicial record, of which authenticity was not open to question. I am not persuaded to accept the contention that the learned revisional Court had no authority to accept the application moved under Section 12(2), C.P.C. And to set aside the judgment/decree dated 13.6.2000 challenged therein in the exercise .Of powers under Section 115 read with Section 151, C.P.C.
No doubt is lurking in my mind that the judgment dated 13.6.2000 was manoeuvred through active collusion between Muhammad Ismail writ petitioner and Muhammad Anwar respondeni No. 2 and thereby Rehrnat Ali respondent No. 1 (petitioner befor the revisional Court and applicant before the Trial Court), was being defrauded by keeping him out of the arena. Fraud, they say, vitiates the most solemn proceedings, and nobody should be allowed to take any benefit from his on fraudulent omissions and commissions. I am unable to hold that a Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of an open fraud. It is axiomatic that no rule is required to correct/rectify a wrong. A Court has always inherent powers to prevent, abuse of the process of law by moulding relief in appropriate cases. PLD 1975 SC 331 is direct authority on the point. The provisions of Section 151, C.P.C. Were rightly invoked by the learned revisional Court in and of justice, as it . Was thought necessary in the circumstances of this case to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to avoid a situation resulting in stalemate. Putting the parties to trial on the afore-said application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. Was nothing but wastage of precious time of the Court. A Court is a high office and its working must "reflect rather more serenity. This Court while sitting in writ jurisdiction would not interfere with an order like the one being impugned herein, which is just and proper.
8. In the result, I would dismiss the writ petition with costs. .