' SALMAN HAMID, J.---The background of the case deducible from record of the file seems to be that Suit No,716 of 2005 for recovery of Rs,2,565,000 was filed by respondent No,1 against the applicant and respondent No,2 who are the real brothers wherein it was asserted that they had taken gold worth Rs,1,865,000 on credit for 10/15 days but failed to return the same. In such Suit the applicant and respondent No,2 filed their written statement and admitted the assertion of the respondent No,1 vis-a-vis obtaining of gold worth Rs,1,865,000 but at the same time it was also mentioned by them (Applicant and Respondent No,2) that they had returned Rs,300,000 with the result that an amount of Rs,1,565,000 was admitted to be payable by them to the respondent No, 1.
On such admission the respondent No,1 preferred application under Order XII Rule 6, C.P.C. For judgment on admission which application was allowed by the trial court in terms of Order dated 2- 3-2009. Execution application was followed thereafter which too was allowed by the trial/executing court in terms of order dated 17-12-2009 against which order Civil Revision Application No,6 of 2010 was preferred by the applicant and respondent No,2 which revision application was dismissed by 1st Additional District Judge, Karachi East in terms of Order dated 24-2-2010. It seems that. Order dated 24-2-2010 was assailed by way of filing C.P. D-935 of 2010 which C.P. It seems is still pending.
It also seems that despite dismissal of applicant and respondent No,2's Revision Application No,6 of 2010 on 24-2-2010 and thereafter filing of C.P. No,935 of 2010 before this court against such dismissal order, they also preferred Civil Appeal No,50 of 2009 praying therein that Order dated 2- 3-2009 whereby application under Order XII Rule 6, C.P.C. Was allowed be set aside. In Civil Appeal 50 of 2009 Application under Order VI Rule 17, C.P.C. Was also moved by respondent No,2 with the prayer that he may be transposed as respondent No,2 and one Mr. Abdul Aziz and Sub-Registrar 'T'
Division and Government of Sindh may also be allowed to be added as respondents No,3, 4 and 5 respectively. Respondent No,2's application to the extent of his transposing as respondent No,2 in Civil Appeal No,50 of 2009 was denied in terms of order dated 12-7-2010. Similarly, impleading of Abdul Aziz as respondent was also denied. However, Sub-Registrar 'T' Division and the Government of Sindh being the parties in Suit No,716 of 2005 being there were allowed to be made parties. Order dated 12-7-2010, passed in Civil Appeal No,50 of 2009 on respondent No,2's application moved under Order VI Rule 17, C.P.C. Was sought to be reviewed in Civil Appeal No, No,50 of 2009 which review was denied by the 1st Additional District Judge, Karachi, East vide Order dated 30-11-2010 when it was observed that the scope of review is limited and that the counsel raised the same arguments as had been raised by him at the time of arguing application moved under Order XII Rule 6, C.P.C. It is against Order dated 13-11-2010 present Civil Revision Application was filed.
2. It is clear from the above narration of events as transpired in the Civil Suit, in the. Civil Appeal No,50 of 2009; in Civil Revision 6 of 2010 and in C.P. D-935 of 2010, filed before this court that the applicant and respondent No,2 all along, despite the fact that they obtained gold worth Rs,1,865,000 from respondent No,1 and they having failed to repay the same faced with Civil Suit 716 of 2005 and such Suit having been decreed, attempted to wriggle out there from and in order to confuse and make things difficult filed all sorts of litigation; also preferred present Revision Application witri the prayer .That the Impugned Order dated 13-11-2010 be set aside and respondent No,2 may be allowed to be transposed as respondent 'No,2 in Civil Appeal No,50 of 2009 from that of appellant No,2.
3. The scope of revision being limited and also the fact that all along the applicant and respondent No,2 were together in the litigation inasmuch as Civil Suit against them for recovery was filed and that they also preferred written statement in the Civil Suit admitting liability and that application under Order XIII Rule 6, C.P.G. Against them on admission was also filed by the respondent, No,1 and that such application was allowed and that the 1st Additional District Judge; Karachi, East in Civil Revision Application No,6 of 2009 moved jointly by applicant and respondent No,2 held that Order dated 17-12-2009 of Vth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi, East in Civil Suit require no interference by passing Order dated 24-2-2010 now cannot raise that the respondent No,2 who was appellant No,2 in Civil Appeal No,50 of 2009 B may be transposed as it would amount changing the whole complexion of the Civil Suit No, 716 of 2010 wherein no such transposition was claimed. It was not the case of the applicant that the 1st Additional District Judge, Karachi East had exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or that it failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested in it or that it acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. Such being the position and the fact that in Civil Suit No,716 of 2005, the applicant and respondent No,2 were defendants Nos.1 and 2 respectively, it is not open that now at this stage of time when judgment and decree have been passed against them and appeals were also preferred, applicant is transposed as respondent No,2 in Appeal No, 50 of 2009 which on the face of it is aimed at to defeat the decree which was passed by the Vth Senior Civil Judge Karachi East in such Civil Suit in favour of the respondent No,1 and C against the applicant and respondent No,2. In this view of the matter this revision application was dismissed on 17-11-2011 reasons whereof are these.