AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. Through this writ petition following prayer has been made:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the writ petition may kindly be acce pted and impugned order dated 17.05.201 1 passed learned District Judge, Khushab may kindly be set aside and order dated 24.11.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge, Khushab may kindly be upheld in the supreme interest of justice.
It is further prayed till the final decision of the writ petition the operation of the impugned order dated 17.05.201 1 passed by District Judge Khushab may kindly be suspended and proceeding before learned trial court may kindly be stayed in the supreme interest of justice."
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also gone through the record.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised three objections. One is that all the parties before the learned trial court have not been made party in the instant writ petition, as such, writ petition is defective one. Second is that Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is not applicable for rejection of application u/s 12 (2) of the CPC and lastly , against a remand order writ petition is not competent.
4. The respondent Mst. Saban filed an application u/s 12 (2) of the CPC on 30.11.2009 to challenge the judgment & decree dated 13.02.1989 passed by Syed Tahir Hussain Kazmi learned Civil Judge Khushab, on the basis of grounds mentioned in the application u/s 12 (2) of the CPC. The petitioners Rab Nawaz etc (respondents No.1 to 7 of application u/s 12 (2) of the CPC) moved an application for summary rejection of application, which was rejected vide order dated 24.11.2010. Mst. Saban preferred a revision petition, which was accepted by the learned District Judge, Khushab vide order dated 17.05.201 1 observing that Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is not applicable to an application u/s 12 (2) of the CPC. Hence, this writ petition by Rab Nawaz etc.
5. Needless to state that when the parties to a lis i.e. parties to the application u/s 12 (2) of the CPC have not been impleaded and necessary parties have been left without any justifiable reasons , therefore, writ petition is not competent. Further against a remand order writ petition is not maintainable as it is a settled law enunciated by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan as well as this Court and other High Courts that it would not be appropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 to interfere with a remand order as a writ lies against the final adjudication and the remand order does not finally decide the lis, rather the Court decided the case earlier has to re-decide it. Reliance can be placed upon the judgments reported as "AKBAR Ali and 18 others versus MUKHT AR AHMAD and 14 others" (2007 CLC 768), "Mst. SALIM-UN-NISA and 5 other versus AZIZ and another" (2009 CLC 860) and "MUHAMMAD ILYAS KHAN versus MUHAMMAD and others" (1986 SCMR 251). Furthermore, Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is also not available for rejection of application u/s 12 (2) of the CPC. In this regard, light can be taken from the judgment of august Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as "MRS. ANIS HAIDER AND OTHERS versus S. AMIR HAIDER AND OTHERS" (NLR 2008 Civil 514). I would like to quote relevant paragraph as under:- "The very terminology used in order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. is indicative of the fact that it pertains to suits and plaints in particular . The Court should have realized the difference between a regular suit and an application. Section 141, C.P.C. cannot be attracted as it pertains to the ordinary procedure laid down in Civil Procedure Code that may be followed in deciding an application but a substantial requirement of recording of evidence on pure and serious question of fact could not be by-passed by unjustifiably invoking of Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. It appears that even the implication of Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. were not properly appreciated and applied. The order can be attracted only when a plaint by itself does not disclose any cause of action. It cannot be rejected on the basis of written statement because the initial burden remains on the plaintif f/petitioner to prove his case on the basis of assertions made in the pleadings. If the principle in hand adopted by the Courts below is endorsed, it would be the easiest thing to dismiss any civil suit simply and merely on the basis of written statement."
6. For the foregoing reasons, the instant writ petition is not competent, same stands dismissed.