' S. ZAKIR HUSSAIN, J.--- This civil revision application has been preferred against the order dated 5- 7-2010 of the learned VIIth Additional District Judge, Karachi (South) passed in Ex.01/09, on an application under section 12(2), C P.C., whereby the said application was dismissed.
' Briefly stated, the facts are that the applicant in the year 2003/2004, obtained a friendly loan of Rs,17,00,000 from the respondent for his business purposes, and executed a Promissory Note thereagainst in presence of two witnesses, but at the mutually agreed time, on demand of the respondent to repay back to him, the aforesaid amount, the applicant issued three cheques to the respondent of different amounts drawn on Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, which when tendered, stood dishonored. Consequently, the respondent, served the applicant with a legal notice but in vain, for the applicant paid no heed thereto and did not pay the said amount with 25% thereof being profit, arising out of the thereof. The respondent then filed Suit No,34 of 2005 under Order XXXVII, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. For recovery of the aforesaid loan amount of Rs,17,00,000 with 25% profit/interest thereon.
' An application filed by the applicant for leave to defend before the learned District Judge, Karachi (South), was dismissed vide his order dated 22-3-2005, against which, the applicant filed Revision Application No,52 of 2006, which, too, was dismissed by the High Court vide order, dated 4-2-2008 with the observation that the revision is pending for two years and remained undisposed of for one reason and the other. The Court, however, indirectly granted the application for leave to defend by asking him to submit cash guarantee/bank guarantee or surety equal to the suit amount within a period of one month before the learned trial court, so that the matter may be decided on merits thereafter. The applicant failed to avail the said opportunity and did not comply with the said direction of the High Court and also abstained himself to attend the hearing before the learned trial Court, with the result, the court having closed the chapter of the said compliance, ordered to proceed ex parte, which culminated into filing of an affidavit in, ex parte proof with relevant documents attached therewith and as a consequence thereof, the suit was accordingly decreed in favour of the respondent. The applicant preferred no appeal against the judgment and decree of this court, which attained finality. He, however, preferred an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. In the instant case and sought the said finding to be upset on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation of facts. The court dismissed the same by its order dated 5-7-2010, which is impugned in the titled revision application, hence, this civil revision application.
' I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record, including the impugned order and finding no merits warranting interference of this court in the impugned order, passed a short order dismissing this revision for the following reasons.
1. The trial court rightly dismissed the application under Order 12(2), C.P.C. As the same was beyond the scope of the subject matter of the suit and was nothing but an attempt to frustrate the ends of justice.
2. The learned trial Court has rightly observed that the remedy already stood exhausted by the applicant and in spite of the relief granted by the High Court, he failed to comply with the directions of the High Court and furnished no surety, with the result, the case was disposed of on merits. There appears no fraud or misrepresentation of facts at all in the matter of obtaining the judgment and decree, whereby the suit has stood decreed as prayed for in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and which as already stated above attained finality since left unchallenged in appeals and in spite thereof, as already stated above, the filing of the said application was nothing but an abuse of process of law, on his part particularly when the facts mentioned therein, were already on record as defence, which having not been legally available to the applicant, any further, has left no room of its repetition in any other form, for adjudication, at any subsequent stage thereof.