' SHAHID WAHEED, J.---The petitioner, on 9-7-1983 instituted a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 9-7-1980 (Exh.R-1) against Shah Muhammad son of Ismail, predecessor- ininterest of present respondents Nos. 1 to 5 (hereinafter called "the respondents"). The suit was ex parte decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 22-10-1984 (Exh.A.7) In compliance with afore-stated decree, sale-deed No, 1293 dated 20-3-1989 was executed and on its basis Mutation No, 325 dated 9-1-1992 (Exh.A-6) was attested in favour of the petitioner. The respondents on 20-3-1993 filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. For setting aside ex parte decree dated 22-10-1984. The petitioner contested the application by filing a reply. On divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and evidence was led. After recording evidence, the learned. Trial Court accepted the application vide order dated 5-12-2009. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved, assailed the above said order through revision petition under section 115, C.P.C., before the learned Addl. District Judge, Jhang who dismissed the same vide order dated 11-5-2010.
2. The petitioner has assailed the afore-stated orders of the learned courts below on the grounds that the same are based on misreading and non-reading of evidence available on record; that impugned orders have been based upon the extraneous consideration by virtue of which grave miscarriage of justice has taken place; that no case was made out within the parameters of section 12(2), C.P.C.; that the application filed under section 12(2), C.P.C. By the present respondents was time-barred; and thus the orders impugned in this petition are liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed this petition and supported the orders impugned therein.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. The petitioner instituted the suit against Shah Muhammad, predecessor-ininterest of the respondents, for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 9-7-1980 (Exh.R-1). In plaint the address of Shah Muhammad was stated as "Shah Muhammad son. Of 'Ismail caste Arain resident of Mouza Shah Mehmood, Tehsil and District Jhang". It is the case of the respondents that above stated address of Shah Muhammad was incorrect as he was resident of Chak No, 320/GB Tehsil and District, Toba Tek Singh;' that he died on 11-4-1969; that the petitioner being aware of death of Shah Muhammad mentioned address the plaint and, thus, by practising fraud and misrepresentation obtained ex parte decree from the learned trial Court. The petitioner contested the assertions made in the respondents' application filed under section 12(2), C.P.C. By giving evasive reply. The fact regarding death of Shah Muhammad on 11-4-1969, that is, before the date of execution of alleged agreement to sell, was not specifically denied by the petitioner. The issue as to whether Shah Muhammad was resident of Chak No,320/GB Tehsil and District Toba Tek Singh or as to whether the petition had mentioned wrong address of Shah Muhammad in the plaint has been thrashed out by the learned courts below. The respondents in support of their claim produced oral as well as documentary evidence. Saif-ur-Rehman the attorney of the respondents, appeared before the, learned trial Court as AW-1. The respondents produced Maqbool Ahmad as AW-2. In documentary evidence the respondents tendered death certificate of Shah Muhammad (Exh.A .2), Mutation No,220 dated 13-6-1967 (Exh.A.3), Mutation No, 214 (Exh.A.4), copy of Registry (Exh.A.5), Mutation No, 325 (Exh.A.6), copy of decree (Exh.A -7), copy of Mutation No, 175 (Exh.A.8), copy of Jamabandi (Exh.A.9) and copy of order dated 22-10-1984 (Exh , A . 10). The appraisal of afore- stated evidence unfolds: (i) that Shah Muhammad was resident of Chak No, 320/GB, Tehsil and District Toba Tek Singh; and, (ii) that Shah Muhammad died at the age of 75 years on 17-4-1969. On the other hand, the petitioner could not lead any confidence inspiring evidence in support of his claim. Even the additional evidence produced, by the petitioner through C.M. No, 4/2010 does not support the petitioner's plea. In view of above stated facts, it becomes clear that address of Shah Muhammad in the plaint was not correct; and, that the ex parte decree dated 22-10-1984 was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading and non-reading of evidence and, thus, the findings recorded by the learned courts below about fraud and misrepresentation do not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
5. Lastly, I would like to address the question of limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that the application filed by the respondents under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was barred by time. He submitted that the respondents had not filed any application for condonation of delay and, thus, as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Abdul Qadoos v. Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and others (2005 SCMR 1428), the application filed by the respondents under section 12(2) C.P.C. Was, liable to be dismissed. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force. The petitioner on 22-10-1984 obtained ex parte decree (Exh.A-7) and on its basis Mutation No,325 (Exh.A.6) was attested in his favour on. 9-1-1992.
The respondents pleaded that they came to know about the ex parte decree through Halqa Patwari 15 days before filing of application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Since the petitioner had obtained the ex parte decree (Exh.A-7) by mentioning incorrect address of Shah Muhammad in the plaint, the respondents were justified in saying that they were not aware of the decree. The respondents at the best could get knowledge of the decree on the date when Mutation No, 325 (Exh.A.6) was attested in favour of the petitioner. The date of attestation of the mutation was 9-1- 1992 and thus even from this date the application which was filed on 20-3-1993, was within time. In these circumstances, as per principle laid down in the case of Mst. Rasool Bibi through Legal Heirs v. Additional District Judge, Sialkot and another (PLD 2006 Lah. 181), there was no need to file any application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The precedent cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner being distinguishable on facts is-not relevant to the controversy in hand.
6. In view of above, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.