CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANGIR, J.----Inessential details apart, the present petitioners along with another instituted declaratory suit on 17.12.1999 to call in question orders of revenue hierarchy , which having been contested by the rival party , the formers were required to examine their evidence, but they failed and ultimately suit was dismissed for want of evidence on 12.01.2002. Thereafter , application for setting aside of said proceedings was tabled by the petitioners under section 12(2) of the Code, 1908 alleging therein that fake suit with their names was instituted, whereas at that very point of time they were not available, but both the learned Courts below being dissatisfied with their stance concurrently dismissed the said application as well as civil revision, hence this Constitutional Petition.
2. During course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners admitted that neither the Advocate, who represented the petitioners was made party to the application under section 12 (2) of the Code ibid nor he was prosecuted at any level. Moreover , learned Trial Court as per mandate of Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order , 1984 itself compared the signatur es of the petitioners available on plaint as well as margin of order sheet and observed that those were identical to the one made on application under section 12(2) of Code ibid. The petitioners so far have not filed any application for its comparison, as such, the conclusion of learned Trial Court that suit was instituted by .the petitioners is very much substantiated from the record. The perusal of the record also reflects that some of the co-applicants subsequently withdrew application under section 12(2) to their extent.
Moreover , the rival parties were being represented by senior members of the local Bar and in absence of any solid evidence to shatter their credibility there was no reason to believe that they being connived with each other had conducted collusive proceedings of the suit at back of the petitioners against their interest. Most importantly , in the interlocutory order dated 02.01.2001 maintained in the said suit, both the petitioners were marked present along with their counsel and they also affixed their signatures, which is sufficient proof that the institution of the suit was not only very much in their knowledge, rather proceedings thereof were actively followed up by them.
3. In addition to above, on having been faced with the situation that if suit instituted by the petitioners is taken out of the scene, then the orders impugned therein being passed against the petitioners by the revenue hierarchy would definitely hold the field and even in that eventuality only the petitioners would have to suffer, the learned counsel for the petitioners felt handicapped to respond satisfactorily . In such facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that the learned lower fora was quite justified to knock out the petitioners on the valid reasons through the impugned orders, which being well narrative of the material on file are not open to any exception by this Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Resultantly , this Constitutional Petition being devoid of any merit and force stands dismissed accordingly .