' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Through this Civil Revision, the petitioner calls in question the judgment and decree, dated 6-6-2009 passed by Additional District Judge Vehari, whereby, an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was dismissed.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant revision are that the respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs,5,00,000 on the basis of Pro note, dated 24-4-2003 under Order XXXVII Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C.
Against legal heirs of Ahmed Bakhsh deceased which was decreed ex parte in favour of the respondent vide judgment .And decree, dated 25-1-2006. Subsequently, the legal heirs of Ahmed Bakhsh deceased filed an application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree, dated 25-1-2006 which was dismissed on 20-7-2007. On 28-2-2009 the petitioner filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Against the judgment and decree, dated 25-1-2006 before the learned trial Court on the ground that at the time of institution of the suit the petitioner was minor but the respondent without filing any application for appointment of guardian ad litem filed the suit against the petitioner by committing fraud and misrepresentation. Therefore, the judgment and decree, dated 25-1-2006 passed by the learned trial Court is\ illegal, unlawful, without jurisdiction.
The respondent contested the above said application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Filed by the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the same. Learned trial Court vide its order, dated 6-6-2009 dismissed application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Filed by the petitioner. Now the petitioner has filed the instant Civil Revision against the order, dated 6-6-2009.
3. Learned counsel for the' petitioner has contended that the impugned order, dated 6-6-2009 is against law and facts; that the findings of the learned trial Court are contrary to law, arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, wanton, perverse, flimsy, fanciful, based on surmises and conjectures, without application of judicial mind and non-application of real facts of the case because the petitioner's contention in his application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Is that at the time of filing of the suit, he was minor and no application for appointment of the guardian ad litem of the petitioner was submitted by the respondent and without appointment of guardian ad litem of the petitioner, the suit filed by the respondent against the petitioner is legally not maintainable and the decree passed against the present petitioner who was minor at the time of filing of the suit is nullity in the eye of law and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that question raised by the petitioner in his application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Is a pure question of fact which cannot be resolved without framing of issues and recording the evidence of the parties but the learned trial Court without adopting a proper procedure of law passed' the impugned order in wholly illegal manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that learned trial Court first of all should have decided the question of minority of the petitioner but learned trial court without deciding the said controversy dismissed the application of the petitioner in the nullity of law. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that this revision petition may be accepted and the order, dated 6-6-2009 passed by the learned trial Court on the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Filed by the petitioner may be set aside and the case may be remanded to the learned trial Court with direction to frame necessary issues and 'record evidence of the parties regarding their respective contentions and then decide the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Filed by the petitioner in accordance with law.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent contested the revision on the ground that the suit was filed on 29-6-2005 against legal heirs of Ahmed Khan and the same was decreed on 25-1-2006 after adopting all measures to procure the attendance of legal heirs of Ahmed Khan. That as Ahmed Khan has taken loan on the basis of Pro note and receipt so his legal heirs were bound to repay the same. That the impugned judgment and decree was not result of fraud and misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction. That none of the other legal heirs of said Ahmed Khan (deceased) has challenged the said judgment and decree and the petition under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was moved after a lapse of three and a half years which is hopelessly time-barred. He has maintained that Naeem, Waqar, Mukhtar Mai and Maryam Mai challenged the above said decree under Order XXXVII Rule 1 and 2, C.P.C. Whereupon the court asked them vide its order, dated 15-6-2007 to deposit Rs,2,00,000 till 20-7-2007 and in that case the impugned judgment and decree will be set aside and the matter will be restarted ab initio but the said persons did not deposit the money with the Court, due to which, their petition was dismissed on 20-7-2007. Learned counsel for the respondent has further contended that the decree passed under Order XXXVII Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C, is not liable to be challenged under section 12(2), C.P.C. In this respect, he has relied upon a case reported as Tanveer Mahboob and another v. Haroon and others (2003 SCM R 480). Lastly, learned counsel for the respondent has prayed for dismissal of this Civil Revision as the impugned order has been passed quite in accordance with law.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record very minutely.
6. I have considered the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court was not competent to proceed with the suit and pass the decree without appointing guardian ad litem of minor defendants in the suit and find no substance in it. With reference to the law laid down by the superior courts on the subject, I while affirming the view hold that no exception can be taken to the law laid down on the 'subject. I am fortified by the judgment ibid referred to by learned counsel for the respondent wherein it is held that "mere fact that minor was not sued through guardian ad litem would not make decree invalid and same would be binding on minor. Omission of formal order of appointment of guardian ad litem of minor, though represented by his natural guardian, would not affect proceedings in suit and decree, unless due to such omission prejudice caused to minor was shown, Otherwise, such objection would be only of technical importance."
7. So far as fraud and misrepresentation as alleged by the petitioner in his application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Is concerned, undoubtedly, impugned judgment and decree was passed validly and legally. Perusal of record transpires that no element of fraud or mis-representation exists. Furthermore, proceedings initiated in the court cannot be said to be conducted by fraud or through misrepresentation as the court proceedings are attached sanctity. The learned trial Court acted quite according to law. There is no irregularity or illegality in the impugned order; therefore, there is no need to interfere into the said order. This Civil Revision has no force, so the same in dismissed.