p>ORDER ' FAROOQ ALI CHANNA , By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Rent Controller who dismissed the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Filed by the petitioner and judgment of Appellate Court passed in First Rent Appeal filed from the order of the Rent Controller passed on application under section 12(2), C . P. C .
2. The background of the instant case is that the respondents Nos.1 to 4 filed ejectment application against the respondent No,5 which was allowed and ejectment orders were issued. The respondent No,5 assailed the ejectment order in First Rent Appeal which was dismissed by the appellate Court.
The respondent No,5 thereafter filed Constitution Petition challenging the ejectment order of the Rent Controller and the judgment passed in the First Rent Appeal by the Appellate Court. The said constitution petition .Was also dismissed by this Court. It is further case of the petitioner that during entire rent proceedings he was unaware of the litigation between the respondents Nos.1 to 5 as on some occasions he was out of country and as soon as he came in knowledge about the ejectment orders of the property in question, he approached the trial Court and filed application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Which application was dismissed by the order dated 30-5-2012. The petitioner filed F.R.A No,176 of 2012 from the said order dated 30-5-2012 but the appellate Court i,e, VIth Additional District Judge' Karachi (South) dismissed F.R.A. No,176 of 2012 vide its judgment dated 5- 7-2012, hence the petitioner has assailed both the orders in this constitution petition.
3. I have heard Mr. Sardar Sher Afzal Khan Advocate for the petitioner. He has contended that a short question of law is involved in this matter as both the Courts below have dismissed the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. And appeal from the said order for want of jurisdiction without deciding the same on.Merits. His contention is that the trial Court instead of deciding the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Dismissed the same on the ground of jurisdiction by observing that the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Lies with the Court which decided the matter finally, the same is the view of appellate court which view of both the Courts below is misreading and contrary to the law as in the instant case the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller although was challenged in appeal and thereafter in constitution petition but the order of ejectment was upheld as such the order of Rent Controller has attained finality, as such the same is final order, therefore, the trial Court was the only competent forum to decide the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. On, merits without going into technicalities. He has also relied upon 2011 SCM R 1854.
4. I have considered the arguments and perused the record. The question involved in this case has come up many'times before the Apex Courts to determine that the judgments/decrees or orders which Court would be the final order awl which Court would be competent to entertain the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. The Apex Courts always have decided this issue by holding that the last, in a, serious of judgments/decrees and orders, which is no longer further alterable and which has acquired finality the said Court would be the Court passing the Judgments/decrees or orders finally and therefore application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Would be maintainable in the said Court for the reason that the judgments/decrees and orders passed by the Courts below merged in the judgments/orders passed by the last Court and therefore, the said Courts below would not be competent to set aside or alter the judgments or orders passed by the appellate Court. Even the case was relied upon by the petitioner i,e, 2011 SCM R 1854 re: Messrs Silk Bank Limited v. Qazi Ehtashamul Haq and others does not support the plea of the petitioner. As such, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court has dismissed the application under section 12(2), C.P.C.
And appeal from the said order correctly therefore needs no interference of this Court.