' MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.---Appellant has filed this appeal feeling aggrieved from order dated 19-11- 2012, passed by the Senior Civil Judge First Class Gilgit in C.M. No,141/2010,
2. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the file. The case in hand has its own very peculiar circumstances. In this connection, the background of the case is very important and we have taken serious notice of the same.
3. Mr. Sadiq Shah, who is plaintiff of the suit is respondent No,1 in the appeal in hand, filed a suit (C.S. No,183/2006) on 04-12-2006. Through order sheet dated 19-03-2008, said suit was decreed in favour of said respondent through an ex-parte decree of the said date. Admittedly, parties went through a prolonged litigation before the trial court for getting the said ex-parte decree set aside but in vain. File shows that parties have contested an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Also besides some miscellaneous applications for getting the said ex-parte decree set aside. Lastly, a petition under Order IX, Rule 13, C.F.C. Was filed on 07-12-2010 that entailed to the impugned order. While giving findings on the same application through impugned order, the learned trial court concluded as under:--
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that application in hand is dismissed holding hopelessly barred by law of limitation. Costs to follow the events.
9. Petition disposed-off. File after due completion may be consigned to records room.
10. Announced: 19-11-2012
4. The learned counsel for appellant was confronted with the above circumstances, who very badly failed to convince us that this court can undo the orders of the learned trial court that he passed in connection with the number of miscellaneous petitions including the petition under section 12(2), C.P.C. Obviously, orders of the trial court in the above referred civil miscellaneous petitions, including a petition under section 12(2), C.P.C. Have attained finality, either because of non-filing of any appeal or revision etc. In the appellate forum against such orders or because of failure of either of the parties from upsetting the said orders in the appellate forum after filing appeals etc. In such forum. Learned counsel for appellant failed to refer any substantive law or even case law showing that petition under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. Is competent even if the remedies available through different petitions including a petition under section 12(2), C.P.C. Are exhausted in futile.
5. We, therefore, hold that the petition under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. Is not only time barred but is incompetent also, therefore, merited dismissal. We uphold the impugned judgment and dismiss this appeal. Appellant to bear costs. Record of trial court, if any, be returned. File be consigned to record.