' NOOR-UL-HAQ N. QURESHI, J. This civil revision impugns the order dated 11.10.2014; whereby learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Islamabad, framed issues on application under Section 12(2) r/w Order 9, Rules 9 & 13, C.P.C. Filed by respondent No, 1 herein challenging ex parte judgment and decree dated 10.04.2013 being product of fraud and misrepresentation.
2. Contextual of this controversy is that the petitioner herein had filed a civil suit for declaration, cancellation of cheques, cancellation of agreement, recovery of possession of suit cars, recovery of house hold articles and in the alternative of its market price and permanent injunction against respondent No, 1 and others. Respondent No, 1 initially contested the suit, but during proceedings allegedly she disappeared and consequently, the suit was decreed ex parte in favour of the petitioner. Now she has filed application for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree mentioned supra, which is pending adjudication in the Court of learned Civil Judge 1st Class Islamabad. After filing of reply, the learned Trial Court framed the issues and adjourned the matter for, evidence of respondent No, 1/petitioner. Feeling aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner has preferred the instant civil revision contending that as no fraud or misrepresentation was committed as respondent No, 1 had been appearing in the proceedings ,of civil suit, therefore, instead of framing issues, the application filed by respondent No 1 should have been dismissed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and studied the available material.
4. In application under Section 12(2), C.P.C., respondent No, 1 has attacked the exparte judgment and decree on account of fraud, misrepresentation and concealment of real facts. The controversy raised :by respondent No 1 essentially requires recording of evidence. These being mixed questions of ,law and facts cannot be decided summarily without framing of issues and recording of evidence, therefore, I do not regard the impugned order as anomalous. The learned Trial Court has rightly framed the issues. Application filed by respondent No, 1 could not be either accepted or rejected straightaway without recording of evidence. There appears no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The learned Trial Court has rightly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it.
5. For what has been discussed above, this Civil Revision has no merits, so the same is dismissed in limine. Civil Revision .