JUDGMENT IJAZ AHMAD, J.---The petitioners instituted a suit for declaration claiming that they being the heirs of one Mst. Bhagan are entitled to inherit the property left by her. The suit was decreed by the learned Civil judge, Sahiwal vide decree dated 19-4-2002. The petitioners approached the revenue authorities for change of the entries in the revenue record.
2. The petitioners came to know that the respondents had earlier instituted a suit for declaration in respect of the same property. It was dismissed by the learned Civil judge, Sahiwal, vide decree dated 3-12-1965. In appeal, preferred by the respondents, their suit was decreed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal vide decree dated 30-5-1966: The defendants in their second suit preferred R.S.A.No.506 of 1966. One of the respondents died. The appellants could not submit the list of the legal heirs of the deceased within 90 days. The appeal abated and was dismissed on 6-4- 1987. The said defendants submitted C.As.Nos.293 and 294 of 1987. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the High Court had rightly dismissed the RSA on account of its having abated. The CAs were dismissed vide judgment dated 3-4-1991.
3. The petitioners submitted an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Before the learned District Judge, Sahiwal, on 12-12-2002. It was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal vide order dated 8-7-2004. It was observed that the judgment and decree dated 30-5-1966, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal had merged into the adjudication made by High Court. It was further observed that the adjudication made by the High Court was neither modified nor reversed by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, therefore, an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Should have been made before High Court.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that an application under section 12(2)
C.P.C. Has to be made to the Court which passed the final judgment, decree or order. As the final judgment and decree in favour of the respondents was passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal, therefore, the application was to be submitted before the said Court only. The RSA had only abated and had not been decided finally on merits and that the august Supreme Court of Pakistan had only agreed with the adjudication made by the High Court. He relies on the judgments cited as "2000 SCMR 900"" titled Abid Kamal v. Muddassar Mustafa and others "1966 SCMR 1516" titled Khawaja Muhammad Yousaf v. Federal Government through Secretary, Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas and others, "PLD 2002 Supreme Court 391" titled Muhammad Yousaf through LRs and others v. Noor Din and others and "1993 SCMR 1171" titled Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs and Minorities and 2 others v. Syed Abdul Majid. He further contends that the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Made on 12-12-2002, for setting aside the decree passed on 3-5-1966, is well within time. He argues that the provisions of section 22 of Limitation Act, 1908, cannot be pressed into service in case where legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff or a defendant are to be brought on record. Places reliance on "1993 SCMR 363" titled. Mst. Sardar Begum v. Muhammad Anwar Shah and others, and "PLD 1988 Supreme Court (AJ&K) 156 titled Sakhi Muhammad and 10 others v. Noor Muhammad and 28 others.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents argues that the order dismissing the application of the petitioners was passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal, on 8-7-2004. The instant revision petition was filed on 27-7-2004. Respondent No.1, had already died on 24-4-2004. The respondents raised objections. Petitioners filed application to implead the legal heirs on 10-5-2004. The petitioners filed amended petition on 17-4-2004. All the legal heirs could not be impleaded. The petitioners had to file C.M. No.214/C/2005 on 2-2-2005 and C.M. No.489/C/2010 on 26-4-2010, for impleading same more legal heirs of the said respondents.
Contends that the cause could not be instituted against a dead person. All the legal heirs of respondent No.1, could not he impleaded till 26-4-2010. The instant revision petition should be construed to have been filed on the day when C.M.No.489/c/2010 was allowed. Places reliance on "PLD 1987 Lahore 387" titled Muhammad Suleman v. Abdul Rashid and 13 others, "PLD 1993 Lahore 439" titled Faquir Muhammad and 48 others v. Province of Punjab through Collector Deputy Commissioner and 4 others "PLD 1982 Supreme Court 46" titled Mst. Maqbool Begum and others v.
Gullan and others, "2007 SCMR 1560" titled Rehmat Din and others v. Mirza Nasir Abbas and others, and "PLD 2006 Lahore 585" titled Subeh Sadiq v. Mst. Rajan through Legal heirs.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
7. The instant revision petition when filed on 27-7-2004 carried the name of respondent No.1 who had already died. No cause can be initiated against a dead person. All the parties to a lis have to be impleaded in the appeal or revision. The legal heirs of the respondents were the necessary parties. All the legal heirs could not be impleaded till 26-4-2010. The revision petition shall be deemed to have been filed on this date It is incompetent on account of non-impleading of the necessary parties and on the point of being barred by the law of limitation. Both the parties agree that the august Supreme Court of Pakistan had not modified or reversed the adjudication of the High Court, therefore, the application in question did not lie there. No doubt the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal, had finally adjudicated the appeal before it, which ended in a judgment and a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. In R.S.A., this Court had passed the judgment and drawn a decree, although the cause had abated on account of the violation of Order 22 Rule 4(3), C.P.C. As it then was. Thus, the final judgment having been passed in favour of the present respondents in their suit by this Court, an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Should have been made before this Court. The judgments referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent lead me to this single conclusion. The learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal, has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioners and has declined the setting aside the decree passed in favour of the respondents. This revision petition is dismissed..