ALI BAIG, J.---This civil revision petition has been filed under section 115, C.P.C. by the petition er, namely Sher Afzal son of Muhammad Wali resident of Minawar against the impugned order dated 10.10.2018 passed by the learned District Judge Gilgit, whereby the learned trial court has dismissed the petition of the petitioner filed under section 12(2), C.P .C.
2. Brief facts forming background of this revision petition are that the present petitioner/plaintif f had instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.50 corore on account of defamation against the present respondent/ defendant on 29-4-2016.
Later on the present petitioner/plaintif f withdrew his suit on 10-5-2016 from trial court stating that the parties have settled the matter as the plaintif f/petitioner has forgiven to the defendant/respondent. Accordingly , the suit was disposed as withdrawn by the learned trial court/District Judge Gilgit.
3. After withdrawal of suit the present petitioner/plaintif f filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. in the court of learned District Judge Gilgit stating therein that on 10-5-2016, the then District Judge Gilgit Mr. Muhammad Umar without taking consent of the present petitioner/plaintif f and without recording statement of the petitioner has passed the impugned order on 10.5.2016 which is not sustainable in the eyes of law .
4. The present respondent contested the aforesaid application filed under section 12(2), C.P.C. by filing his replication in the court of the learned District Judge Gilgit.
5. The learned trial court/District Judge Gilgit after hearing arguments on maintainability of the aforesaid petition filed under section 12(2), C.P.C. on behalf of both the parties has dismissed the aforesaid application of the petitioner vide the impugned order dated 10.10.2018, hence this revision petition.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the then learned District Judge Mr. Muhammad Umar has disposed of the suit of the petitioner without taking consent of the petitioner and without recording statement of the petitioner , therefore, the petitioner had filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. in the trial court/ District Court which has wrongly been dismissed by the learned District Judge Gilgit vide the impugned order dated 10.10.2018. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the impugned order passed by the leaned trial court/District Court is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case, as such the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is not maintainable and liable to be set aside.
7. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed this revision petition and supported the impugned order passed by the learned trial court/District Judge Gilgit by contending that the petitioner himself had appeared before the learned trial court/District Court on 10.5.2016 and had requested that he has settled the matter , therefore, permission for withdrawal of suit may be granted and accordingly the learned trial court/District Judge Gilgit has disposed of the suit as withdrawn on the verbal request of the petitioner/plaintif f. The learned counsel for the respondent further argued that recording of statement of the petitioner/ plaintif f is not mandatory and presumption of truth is attached to the order sheet of the court. The learned counsel for the respondent further argued that no groun ds for filing of petitioner under section 12(2), C.P.C. are available to the petitioner .
8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with able assistance.
9. Admittedly , an aggrieved party/ person can file application under section 12(2), C.P.C. on the plea of fraud, mis- representation or want of jurisdiction. Thus for ease and convenience, I would like to reproduce the relevant provisions of 12(2), C.P .C. as under:- Section 12(2), C.P .C.
Where a person challenges the validity of a judgment, decree or order on the plea of fraud, mis- representation or want of jurisdiction, he shall seek his remedy by making an application to the court, which passed the final judgment, decree, or order , and not by a separate suit.
10. From bare reading of afore said provisions of law it appears that there are three grounds for filing a petition under section 12(2), C.P.C. i.e. fraud mis-representation and want of jurisdictio n. The above mentioned three ingredients/ grounds are lacking in the instant case as no fraud has committed by the present respondent, the petitioner was not mis-represented before the trial court as the petitioner has been taking part in the proceedings conducted by .trial court/ District Judge Gilgit and he had appeared in person before the learned trial when the impugned order was passed on 05.10.2016 and under Defamation Ordinance, 2002 the District court Gilgit has jurisdiction to entertain the defamation cases, hence the petition filed by the petitioner under section 12(2), C.P.C. was not sustainable in the eye of law and the learned trial court has rightly dismissed the said application vide the impugned order dated 10-10-2018.
11. The finding recorded by the learned trial court about the maintainability of the application filed by the petitioner under section 12(2), C.P.C. is eminently just and correct and suffer from no illegality or infirmity . Thus, this revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. File.