' This civil revision arises from the order of learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal, whereby, he on 24th April, 1983 confirmed the order, dated 8th March, 1983 passed by the learned Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Pakpattan, dismissing the application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Filed by Khushi Muhammad appellant against Rao Muhammad Hafeez respondent.
2. The facts leading up to this revision in brief are that on 22nd November, 1980 Rao Muhammad Hafeez respondent filed a petition for ejectment against Haji Abdul Majid for his eviction from shop No, 54-A situated in Arifwala. Mr. Munawar Khan Niazi, the learned Rent Controller on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties allowed the petition on 22nd June, 1981. Thereafter, Khushi Muhammad petitioner filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Before Mr. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal Sheikh, Civil Judge/Rent Controller for setting aside the order of ejectment dated 22nd June, 1981 as having been obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. Alongwith this application, he filed an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. For temporary injunction restraining Rao Muhammad Hafeez from dispossessing him in execution of the decree dated 22nd June, 1981. This application, was, however, dismissed on 8th March, 1983. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal which was entrusted to learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal who dismissed the same on 24th April, 1983. Hence this revision.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the question of the grant of temporary injunction has not been properly considered by the Courts below inasmuch as the petitioner being in the physical possession of the shop and the order of ejectment having been passed at his back, it was a fit case for the grant of temporary injunction till the disposal of application under section 12 (2), C.P.C. Moved by the petitioner.
4. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the record I find that Mr. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal Sheikh, the Rent Controller rejected the application by stating : "As section 12 (2), C.P.C. Lays down the principle that only the same Court can adjudicate upon the matter which passed the decree. The successor Court of Mr. Munawar Khan Niazi, Rent Controller is the Court of Khawaja Aurangzeb, Rent Controller, Pakpattan. The execution proceedings are also pending in that Court.
' From the above observation, I have come to the conclusion that this Court is not the proper forum to file that petition so I recall my order, dated 14th November, 1982. Consequently, the application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Is hereby, rejected."
5. The plain reading of section 12(2), C.P.C. Indicates that no exception can be taken to the order passed by Mr. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal Sheikh, Rent Controller inasmuch as he was not the Court which passed the decree. Since I am of the view that Mr. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal Sheikh had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the application under section 12(2), C. P. C. Against the decree passed by Mr. Munawar Khan Niazi who admittedly was not his predecessor, therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsel do not make out good ground for interference with the order passed by him which stands confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge.
Resultantly, this revision is dismissed in limine.