TARIQ JAVAID, J. --- This writ petition is directed against judgment dated 30.8.2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Multan, whereby revision against order dated 4.2.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Multan was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner instituted civil suit against respondents Nos. 3 to 5 for cancellation of registered sale-deed. The allegation of the petitioner is that while he was away from Pakistan, the respondents Nos. 3 to 4 on the basis of Power-of-Attorney had alienated the suit land to respondent No. 5 illegally. The suit was decreed ex parte. The appeal also failed and then the execution proceedings were filed. During execution proceedings the subsequent vendee/respondent No. 5 Ghulam Hussain was dispossessed from the suit property.
3. The subsequent vendee filed an application for restoration of the possession before the executing Court on the ground that suit land as described in the plaint was situated in Mouza Tatay Fur whereas he has been dispossessed from the property which is situated in Mouza Bohar. The executing Court restored possession of the subsequent vendee. After the restoration of the possession the petitioner filed application under Sections 151 & 152, C.P.C. For correction and amendment of the plaint, judgment and decree. It was prayed that the suit land has wrongly been described in the plaint as situated in Mouza Tataypur, whereas actually it was situated in Moza Bohar and that being clerical mistake it needed to be corrected. The application of the petitioner was dismissed by the executing Court and the revision also failed. Hence this Constitutional petition.
4. It appears that the description of the suit land as given in the plaint that it was situated in Tatay Pur was not mere omission. The suit remained pending for more than eight years as it was instituted in 1996 and was finally decreed in 2004. The execution petition was also filed and got executed at Moza Bohar whereas in Fard Taleeka it was described as situated in Mouza Tataypur.
The learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that valuable rights accrued to the respondents and possession has already been restored by the executing Court on an application filed by one Ghulam Hussain. It was also observed that while moving application under Sections 151 & 152, C.P.C.
For seeking amendment of the plaint as well as decree an attempt was made to frustrate the order dated 3.12.2006 whereby the executing Court has restored the possession to one Ghulam Hussain who was not arrayed as defendant in the original suit and who claims to be subsequent vendee of the suit property.
5. The learned counsel for the intervener has pointed out that an application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. Has already been filed by the intervener Ghulam Hussain in the Trial Court wherein if has been alleged that the sale to the respondent was made by the petitioner and respondents subsequently sold the suit property to the intervener, and without impleading him as respondent/defendant the sale was got set aside. It is alleged that the proceedings were collusive.
6. Since an application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. Has been filed by the subsequent vendee, the desired amendment cannot be allowed unless his rights are determined under the law. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not controvert the fact of application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. The petition is dismissed with costs. .