ALI BAIG, J.---This civil revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment/decree dated 8-6-2017 passed by the learned District Judge Ghizer in Civil 1st Appeal No. 72/2015 whereby the learned 1st appellate court has dismissed the civil 1st appeal of the present petitioner .
2. Brief facts forming background of the instant civil revision petitioner are the present respondent No. 1 namely Muhammad Zahir had instituted a suit for declaration and possession of suit land against the present respondent No.2 namely Zafar son of Gul Bahar in the learned trial court which was finally disposed of on the basis of compromise effected between the above named parties vide judgment/decree dated 6-6-2013 and the present petitioner was not party to that suit.
3. The present petitioner had filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. against the present respondents in the trial court calming that the respondents have included his land in the suit land and have obtained compromise decree including land of petitioner through fraud, mis-representation and compromise decree came to the knowledge of the present petitioner on 07-6-2013 and accordingly he has filed an application under section 12(2) in the trial court with prayer to set aside compromise decree/judgment dated 06-6-2013.
4. The present respondents contested the aforesaid petition filed under section 12(2), C.P.C. by filing of replication in the trial court wherein they have raised certain legal objections and have repudia ted the averments of the petition filed under section 12(2), C.P .C.
5. On the basis of divergent pleadings of the parties the learned trial court has framed as many as 11 issues including issue of relief.
6. After framing of issues the learned trial court directed the parties to adduce their respective evidence as they wished to adduce. Accordingly , the prese nt petitioner produced two oral witness es namely Gulfraz son of Saad Khan and Muhammad Ayoub besides recording of his own statement in the trial court. Likewise the present respondents have also produced two oral witnesses namely Murad Hasil son of Adina Khan and Qimat Shah besides recording of statement of respondent No. 2.
7. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial court, after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties, has dismissed the petition of present petitioner filed under section 12(2), C.P.C. vide judgment /decree dated 21.10.2015.
8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment/decree of the learned trial court dated 21-10-2015 the present petitioner had filed a civil 1st appeal in the court of the District Judge Ghizer which was also dismissed by the learned 1st appellate court vide impugned judgment/decree dated 08-6-2017, hence this revision petition.
9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the impugned judgments/decrees passed by both the courts below are contrary to law and facts on the record of the case as such the impugned judgments/decrees are not maintainable and liable be to set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that judgments of both the courts below are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence of the parties.
That the learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that both the lower courts have failed to apply its judicious thought while passing the impugned judgments/decrees, therefore the said judgm ents are not sustainable in the eye of law and liable to be set aside.
10. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner by contending that this revision petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has failed to file copies of pleadings and other relevant documents with the revision petition as required under proviso 2 of section 115, C.P.C. The learned counsel for the respondents further argued that, the respondents have neither committed fraud nor there is any misrepresentation as the petitioner has been appearing before the learned trial court as witness for recording of his statement on behalf of the respondent No.1 . The learned counsel for respondents further argued that both the learned lower courts have rightly dismissed the petition of the petitioner filed under section 12(2), C.P.C. after proper evaluating of the evidence of the parties and appreciating relevant provisions of law , hence the instant revision petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
11. I have given my dispassionate thought to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance I have gone through the record of the case.
12. Since the petitioner has filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. in the trial court for setting aside compromise decree passed between the respondents by trial court, therefore, first of all I would like to reproduce the relevant provisions of 12(2), C.P .C. as under:- Section 12(2) "Where a person challen ges the validity of judgment, decree or order on the plea of fraud, misrepresentation or want of juris-diction, he shall seek remedy making an application to the court which has passed the final judgment/decree or order and not by a separate suit."
13. Bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions of law reveals that petition under section 12(2), C.P.C. can be filed on three grounds i.e. Fraud, Misrepresentation and want of jurisdiction. Admittedly , the learned trial court had jurisdiction to pass compromise decree dated 06-6-2013. As far as two other grounds i.e. fraud, and misrepresentation are concerned, in order to prove' these two allegations the petitioner has produced two oral witnesses namely Gulfraz and Mohummad Nadeem. I have perused the statements of above named two P .Ws recorded before the trial court.
14. From perusal of statements of above named P.Ws it transpires that the above named P.Ws have not substantiated the claim of the petitioner and they have not uttered a single word regarding fraud and misrepresentation and they have simply narrated facts of the case. P.W-1 namely Gulfaraz has admitted in his cross-examination that before passing of compromise decree between the respondents, the present petitioner had appeared before the learned trial court as witness of respondent No.1 and this fact was also admitted by the petitioner himself in his cross-examination, thus the petitioner was well aware regarding pending adjudication of suit between the respondents in the trial court and he has not bothered to file an application under Order I, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. to implead himself as a plaintif f or defendant in the suit. The petitioner had on several occasions appeared as a witness before trial court to support version of the respondent No. 1 as such he had knowledge regarding suit between respondents, therefore the petitioner had failed to prove any misrepresentation, or fraud on the part of the respondents and want of jurisdiction of trial court to pass the impugned compromise decree/ judgment.
15. Moreover , this revision petition has not been filed in accordance with the requirement of the proviso 2 of section 115, C.P.C., as neither copy of plaint nor written statement and nor other relevant documents have been produced along with revision petition. However , later on the petitioner has filed said documents through an application under Order XIII, Rule 2, P.P.C. which has yet not been allowed by this court, therefore, in the absence of copies of pleadings, the petitioner stands incapacitated from making out any case for reconsideration.
16. After hearing the learned counsel for parties and having gone through the record, I have come to the conclusion that this revision petition has no merit which deserves dismissal straightaway as case of the petitioner stand concluded by concurrent findings of facts based on proper appreciation of evidence by two courts below in favor of the respondents and does not warrant any interference by this court, especially as it has not been shown to this court that there is any misreading or non-reading of any relevant evidence by both the courts below .
17. The nutshell of above discussion is that this revision petition filed under section 115, C.P.C. having no force, is hereby dismissed and impugned judgments/decrees of both the courts below are upheld. Criminal Miscellaneous No. 260/2019 also stands dismissed/ disposed of. File