' MRS. IRSHAD QAISER, J.--- Petitioner Muhammad Aziz has filed the present revision petition against the judgment and order dated 25-5-2010 of Additional District Judge, Takht Bhai whereby appeal of the respondent Gul Badshah was accepted and the judgment and order dated 30-6-2009 passed by Civil Judge was set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that originally a Suit bearing No,131 was instituted by Roohullah (respondent No,1 in the impugned appeal),. For possession through pre-emption of the suit property, the detail of which is given in it against Muhammad Aziz (present petitioner). In this suit a compromise was effected between the parties and on the basis of compromise the suit was decreed on 7-12-2005 in favour of Roohullah.
3. This decree and judgment dated 7-12-2005 was challenged by the respondent Pir Gul Badshah by tiling an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. On the ground that the decision of the learned trial Court dated 7-12-2005 is wrong, unjustified against the facts and circumstances as he has purchased the suit property through a deed dated 31-5-2005 from Muhammad Aziz (petitioner).
After doing the needful the learned trial Court vide order dated 30-6-2009 dismissed the said application. Against that order respondent filed an Appeal No,107/13 of 2009 and challenged the order of trial Court. The learned Additional District Judge vide impugned judgment dated 25-5- 2010 accepted the appeal and set aside the order of Civil Judge. Now feeling aggrieved of the impugned judgment dated 25-5-2010 petitioner filed the present petition.
4. Now the main question which requires to be determined is that whether present civil revision is entertainable and this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.
5. The petition under .Section 12(2) was dismissed by the learned. Civil Judge vide order dated 30- 6-2009. This order, was not a decree within the meaning of section 2(2), C.P.C. And the order under section 12(2), C.P.C. Being not one of those order which are appealable under section 104 or XLIII R.1, C.P.C. There is no other law for the time being inforce which makes the order under section 12(2) appealable. Reference in this respect is made to 1987 CLC 1501, 1982 CLC 625, PLD 1990 Lahore 425, 1987 CLC Lahore 1501. As it is the consistent view of the superior Courts that in such situation the order passed by the Additional District Judge would be deemed as a revision exercised by said Court under section 115, C.P.C. Reference in this respect is made to 1994 SCMR 2265 where the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has held:--- "(4) We have examined the matter carefully. We find that the application of the petitioner for restoration of the suit was dismissed under Order IX, Rule 3, C.P.C. The petitioner/plaintiff applied for the restoration of suit under Order IX, Rule 4, C.P.C. The application was dismissed on 3-4-1991.
' No appeal is provided in the Civil Procedure Code against this order. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the learned District Judge was, therefore, not maintainable. At the same time the learned District Judge under section 115(2), C.P.C. Was authorized to send for the record of the case and examine the correctness of the order dated 3-4-1991 of the trial Court. Distinction is to be, made between a case where there is a total. Absence of jurisdiction/authority in the Court to hear and decide the cause before it and a case where the same Court has the jurisdiction to deal with the lis under some other provision of the Code/Law. The instant case does not suffer from want of jurisdiction authority/power of the District Judge ab initio. He has simply committed an irregularity, in that, he heard the lis as an appeal. The respondents participated in the proceedings before the learned District Judge. They did not raise any objection about his' jurisdiction to hear the case or about maintainability of the appeal. Now it does not lie in their mouth to say that the learned District Judge had no authority at all to hear and decide the lis before him. Had there been total lack of jurisdiction of the District Judge to send for the record and examine the correctness of the order dated 3-4-1991 of the trial Court, either as an appellate Court or as a revisional Court, then, of course, the order passed by him would have been a nullity in the eye of law.
"(5) We are convinced that although the order dated 3-4-1991 of the trial Court was not an appealable order, yet under section 115(2), C.P.C. The District Judge had revisional power to deal with it, so it will be deemed that the appeal was actually heard and decided as a Revision. In this view of the matter order dated 26-10-1991 of the District Judge could be treated as a revisional order precluding further interference by the High Court under section 115(4), C.P.C. And as such impugned order/judgment is without jurisdiction/authority."
6. In such situation the impugned order passed by Additional District Judge dated 25-5-2010 would be deemed as a revision exercised by the said Court under section 115 of C.P.C. Once revisional jurisdiction has been exercised by the District Court under section 115, C C.P.C., this Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the order passed by the revisional Court in revisional jurisdiction. In this .Regard the provision of subsection (4) of section 115 of C.P.C. Are clear which provides that:- "No proceeding in revision shall be entertained by the High Court against an order made under subsection (2) by the district Courts".
7. In view of the above finding and the clear annunciation of law as settled by august Supreme Court of Pakistan this Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present petition in its revisional jurisdiction as it would be against, the clear command of section 115(4), C.P.C.
Accordingly this revision petition is thus dismissed with no order as to costs.