AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. -- Through Through this civil revision, order passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Liaquatpur 13.12.2010 has been challenged whereby application filed by the petitioners under Section 12(2) of the C.P.C. Against the judgment and decree dated 5.09.2000, has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a suit for declaration was filed by Khadim Hussain, etc. Against Sardar Shah and another on 28.07.1980; after trial of the case, the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 04.05.1999; an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff and the learned Addl District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 05.09.2000 accepted the appeal and decreed the suit. In this decree Mutation No. 171 attested on 22.07.1937 was declared to be illegal. According to the facts of the this litigation during the pendency of the suit from 22.10.1982 till 2.02.2003 there are 73 various mutations; the defendants of the suit transferred f)ortions of the suit land in favour of various persons; that the applicants/revision petitioners claimed to have purchased the suit land from 10.05.1992 to 27.01.2001 throUgh various mutations, therefore, they filed an application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. On 24.07.2000. The reply was requisitioned; the decree-holders contested the application and after hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application on the basis that during pendency of the suit principle of lis pendens is applicable and transactions during the pendency of lis when suit is decreed, has no value against the rights of decree-holder.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Addl. District Judge was required to frame the issues and invite the parties to adduce their evidence, but he without framing the issues dismissed the application moved by the petitioners under Section 12(2) of the C.P.C.
5. On the oche! Hand, learned counsel for the respondents states that the facts are admitted between the parties. While relying on a case reported as "Muhammad Ashraf Butt and others v.
Muhammad Asif Bhatti and others (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 905)", he has stated that during the pendency of the suit a part of the suit property has been purchased by the pettioners, therefore, they have absolutely no right to move the application under Section 12(2), C.P.C.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents , supported by law cited by him and pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, is correct. I am of the view that the petitioners were having no right to move application under Section 12(2), C.P.C., for making out a case for interference by the Court in a decree granted by it, maker of application is bound to show that the judgment is bad due to misrepresentation, fraud or want of jurisdiction. All the above- mentioned grounds of interference in the judgment and decree under Section 12(2) of the C.P.C.
Are missing, therefore, the same has rightly been dismissed by the learned Add!. District Judge. In this view of the matter, there is no force in this civil revision, same is hereby dismissed.
Civil esd