' BHAJANDAS TEJWANI, J.---The petitioner has assailed the impugned judgment dated 19-4-2006, and decree dated 21-4-2006, passed by the court of learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Dadu, in Civil Appeal No,30 of 2005 (converted into revision).
2. The facts giving rise to the above petition are that the respondent No,1, filed Suit No,23 of 1982, on 5-9-1985, before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Mehar, which was declared ex parte after due service on the petitioner.
3. The petitioner instead of filing appeal preferred an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. On 2-4- 2006, before the same Court, which was dismissed on merits by order dated 9-8-1986. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Court of District Judge, Dadu, by filing Civil Appeal No,25 of 1986, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 28-6-1992, and thereafter restoration application filed by petitioner under Order XLI Rule 19, C.P.C. For restoration of his Civil Appeal No,1986, but the said restoration application was dismissed by the court of learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Dadu, on 27-1-1993. The petitioner filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No,1 of 1995, before this court, which was also dismissed by order dated 24-12-1999.
4. The respondent No,1, thereafter filed execution application for execution of the decree, which was being contested by the petitioner and on 4-3-2000, he filed objections on the execution application but oft 18-10-2004, the petitioner had chosen to file another application under section 12(2), C.P.C.
For recalling the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, which had attained finality upto the level of this Court. The said application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was also dismissed on 9-8- 1986 by the trial Court as not maintainable; against which the petitioner filed Civil Appeal No,30 of 2005, before learned District Judge, Dadu, which was decided by the impugned judgment dated 19-4-2006, and decree dated 21-4-2006, whereby the learned 1st -appellate Court remanded the matter to the trial Court to decide the same afresh.
5. The petitioner has challenged the said judgment and decree with prayer to declare the same as illegal, unjust, unconstitutional and without lawful authority.
6. I have heard Mr. Gulab Rai Jessrani learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ali Anwar Saahar learned Advocate for respondent No,1 and Mr. Nisar Ahmed G. Abro, learned counsel appearing for the official respondents.
7. The learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the , impugned judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court is against the record and material available, which shows that in earlier round of litigation the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court have been upheld in the appellate forum and so also same had attained finality in revisional jurisdiction of this Court, he further contended that the learned appellate Court without giving any single reason to justify its findings has actually disturbed the first round of litigation which included final verdict of this Court.
The learned appellate Court did not appreciate that the similar application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Filed by the petitioner was already dismissed on merits in the year 1983, therefore, another application on the same grounds and in order to start second round of litigation, vas with mala tide intention but the learned appellate Court did not consider these aspects nor even touched the merits of the impugned order of the trial Court, which was full of reasoning. Learned counsel lastly contended that the learned appellate forum has decided the matter by converting it in revision in cursory manner without writing a single line to justify the setting aside of the impugned order for remand of the case to trial Court.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent No,1, admitted the above factual position and contended that his anxiety was that the matter should be decided on merits, which has not been decided in earlier round of litigation upto this Court, therefore, he argued that the order passed by learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Dadu, may be maintained and the petition may be dismissed.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the official respondents has not supported the impugned judgment and decree by further adding that the learned appellate Court has even not considered or has gone through the earlier judgments and decrees including the order passed by this Court and in haphazard manner remanded the case by setting aside the order dated 9-8-1986, passed by learned trial Court by fully justifying its order.
10. It is an admitted position that in the first round of litigation the judgment and decree of the trial Court was challenged by filing application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Which was adjudicated by order dated 16-4-2005; against that order, the appeal was, which was not prosecuted and resulted in its dismissed on 28-6-1992, and restoration application filed was also dismissed. The petitioner challenged the order of appellate Court in Civil Revision No,1 of 1995, before this Court which was also dismissed by order dated 24-12-1999, therefore; the findings of trial Court by way of judgment and decree become final as the order of this Court was not challenged, but after lapse of about five years the petitioner with intention other than the bona tide repeated his application under section 12(2), C.P.C. And the same was dismissed by well reasoned order dated 16-4-2005, against which appeal was preferred and in appeal the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Dadu, disturbed all such findings by converting the appeal into revision and setting aside the order, dated 16-4-2005, passed by learned 1st Civil Judge, Mehar, on second application under section 12(2), C.P.C. The learned appellate Court decided the matter in cursory manner and without even taking pain to go through the available record and giving some findings or reasoning but in this case the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Dadu, in haphazard manner and without any single line reasoning has set aside the well reasoned order passed by learned Civil Judge, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned 2nd Additional Distribt Judge, Dadu, are not only illegal, but without any lawful authority and jurisdiction and as such same cannot sustain.
11. For the foregoing reasons this petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 19- 4-2006, and 21-4-2006, respectively, passed by the Court of learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Dadu, are declared illegal, without jurisdiction and are accordingly set aside with no order as to costs.