' This petition for Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 27th June, 1981 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kasur, whereby he admitted the appeal against the order dated 18th June, 1981 passed by Civil Judge, Chunian for hearing and further ordered that status quo should be maintained in the meanwhile.
2. Muhammad Yaqoob, the present petitioner had filed a suit for possession of land, the subject- matter of this litigation, by pre-emption in the Court of Civil Judge, Chunian, claiming his right of pre-emption to be superior on the ground that he happened to be the son of Pir Bakhsh. The respondents denied his better right of pre-emption contending that in fact he was not the son of Pir Bakhsh but was the son of one Khair Din.
3. On the basis of the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties before the learned Civil Judge, Chunian, the said Civil Judge found that the petitioner was son of Pir Bakhsh and he had a better right of pre-emption as against the respondents/vendees. The appeal filed by the respondents before the learned Additional District Judge, Kasur, was dismissed on 19th January, 1980. Thereafter their Regular Second Appeal was also dismissed on 20th April, 1980.
4. They filed petition for leave to appeal before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan but the same was dismissed on 6th April, 1981.
5. Subsequently on 30th April, 1981 respondents filed an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned Civil Judge, Chunian, challenging the validity of the aforementioned judgments and decrees on the plea of fraud and misrepresentation although the particulars of the alleged .Fraud and misrepresentation are not stated in the application under section 12(2) and it is simply alleged that the petitioner fraudulently claimed himself to be the son of Pir Bakhsh.
6. Subsection (2) of section 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads :- "(2) where a person challenge the validity of a judgment, decree or order on the plea of fraud, misrepresentation 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."
' It is noteworthy that prior to this amendment validity of a judgment, decree or order on the plea of fraud, misrepresentation or lack of jurisdiction could be challenged by way of an independent civil suit, but now after the addition of subsection (2) the object can be achieved by making an application to the Court which passed the final judgment, decree or order in question and filing of separate suit has been barred. The rationale behind this amendment is the prevention of multiplicity of suits. It, however, transpires from the contents of subsection (2) of section 12 ibid that an application under these provisions can only be made to the Court which passed the final judgment, decree or order and not to the Court of first instance. In the circumstances of the under consideration case the respondents filed application under section 12 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Court of Civil Judge, Chunian, i,e, a Court of first instance although the final judgment in the matter, was passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. It is an established proposition of law that the lower Courts' judgment merges into the judgment of the appellate Court and thus the appellate Court's judgment is to be treated as final judgment. It is, therefore, amply clear that in the circumstances of this case application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure B was not competent before the Court of Civil Judge, Chunian, but the same could be filed only before the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
6. Such being the legal position the order passed in this behalf by the Civil Judge, Chunian, and the impugned order passed by the Additional District Judge, Kasur, are to be treated as orders passed by Courts having no jurisdiction in the matter.
7. For the foregoing reasons the under consideration petition for Civil Revision is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kasur on 27th June, 1981 is set aside. No order is made as to costs.