1. ' SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDUQUI, J.---The petitioners instituted Suit No,231/1 of 1986 before the Civil Judge, Peshawar, seeking a declaration that he decree in Suit No,119/1 of 1983, dated 22-1-1983 was obtained by the respondents through fraud and misrepresentation. The respondents resisted he suit and took the plea that the suit instituted by the petitioners was barred order section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Civil Judge, Peshawar, accepted the plea of the respondents and rejected the plaint holding that the suit instituted by the petitioners is not maintainable and that the decree passed n Suit No, 119/1 of 1983 could only be challenged by the petitioners by filing in application tinder section 12(2) of C.P.C. Before the Court which passed the decree in the Suit No 119/1 of 1983.
2. ' The petitioners preferred an appeal against the above judgment of the Civil Judge before the District Judge, Peshawar, who accepted the appeal of the petitioners by order, dated 11-11-1990, set aside the judgment of the Civil Judge and remanded the case to the Civil Judge who passed the decree in Suit No, 119/1 of 1983 with the direction that the plaint in Suit No,213/1 of 1986 be treated as an application under section 12(2) of C.P.C.
3. ' The respondents filed a revision application against the order of the District Judge, before. The High Court of Peshawar being Revision No,3 of 1991. The learned. Judge in Chamber accepted the revision application of respondents, set aside the order of the District Judge, Peshawar, and rejected the plaint in Suit No,231 observing:--- "All disputes of civil nature are decided in accordance with the procedure and the law and neither this Court nor any other Court has the jurisdiction to override the procedure and the law in adjudication or decision on an application, plaint or a suit. Even the provision of section 151. C.P.C.
4. Cannot help the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 in the case as the said provisions are in aid of the procedure prescribed by fhe Civil Procedure Code for deciding the disputes of civil nature and the provision is not an overriding provision of the Civil Procedure Code. The inherent powers of the Court are to be exercised in accordance with the procedure and the law and, therefore, section 151, C.P.C. Will also not help the plaintiffs/respondents Nos.1 and 2 in the case."
5. With respect to the learned Judge in Chamber we are unable to accept the above reasoning. It is well settled, that all procedural laws are meant for advancing the cause of justice and they cannot be made a vehicle of oppression to suppress the remedies. It is also well-accepted principle of law that Courts always lean in favour of adjudication on merit rather than stifling proceedings on technicalities. A cursory reading of the plaint in Suit No,231. Of 1986 instituted by the petitioners will show that it contained all the ingredients of section 12(2), C.P.C. Mere fact that it was described as a plaint and was registered as plaint could not deprive the Court of its jurisdiction to decide it as an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. If otherwise such jurisdiction was available to the Court under the law. It is not disputed before us that an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Could be filed for setting aside the decree in suit No,119/i of 1983 on the grounds mentioned in the plaint in Suit No, 231/1 of 1986. In these circumstances the learned District Judge, Peshawar, was absolutely right in treating the plaint in Suit No, 231/1 of 1986 as an application under section 12(2) of C.P.C. And remanding it to the Civil Judge who passed the decree in Suit No,119/1 of 1983 for disposal 'according to law. ##TSE#The learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 5 is unable to point out any prejudice which could be caused to respondents by treating the plaint in Suit No, 231/1 of 1986 as an application under section 12(2) of C.P.C. The Courts, in order to do justice between the parties, would generally allow treatment/conversion of proceedings of one kind into another, unless there exists some legal bar against such treatment/conversion. In the case of Safia Bibi v.. Aisha Bibi 1982 SCM R 494 the application moved by the petitioner in that case before the Lahore High Court for recalling the order, dated 26-101980 was dismissed by the High Court on the grounds that the petitioner could take legal action against the attorney and resort to appropriate legal action for redress of grievances. This Court granted leave to appeal in the above case to consider whether the High Court had jurisdiction to recall the order in accordance with section 12(2) of the C.P.C.
6. Which was recently introduced in the Code of Civil Procedure and finally allowed the appeal observing as follows:-- "The aforequoted provisions were newly added by an amendment through an Ordinance in March, 1980. The High Court passed the first order October, 1980. The amendment, it appears, was not published in the journals within reasonable time. This, it further appears, seems to be the reason why the learned counsel failed to bring it to the notice of the learend Judge when the application for recall of order, dated 26-10-1980 was disposed of: This supposition is strengthened by the fact that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (unamended) were mentioned in the application submitted by the appellant in the High Court. It cannot be denied that mention of a wrong provision of law in an application would not deprive the Court of the power and jurisdiction if otherwise the same is available under the law."
7. ' Similarly, in the case of. Thal Engineering Industries Ltd. v. The Bank of Bahawalpur Ltd. And another 1979 SCM R 32 this Court held that there is no bar in the law if once an appeal has been treated as revision to again treat the same as an appeal and dispose the same in accordance with law. In the above-noted case this Court while dismissing the petition and repelling contention of the petitioner that the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court having once treated the appeal as revision could not again treat revision as appeal and decide it, observed as follows:-- "We, however, do not fully share his view that once having treated the appeal as a revision the same could not again be disposed of as an appeal. Once the appeal 'had been filed in time and on some mistaken advice a request was made to treat the same as revision, there does not appear to be any legal bar, on a proper appreciation of the law, in again treating it as an appeal. It is established law that Courts should lean in favour of adjudication rather than stifling a proceeding on technicalities."
8. ' The above principles have been reiterated by this Court in the case of Karamat Hussain and others N. Muhammad . Zaman and' others PLD 1987 SC 139. The observations made by this Court in the above case were as follows: "Thus, if the second appeal that is brought before the High Court exhibits certain features which demonstrate that it falls within the scope of interference under section 115, C.P.C., the Court should exercise its jurisdiction under the said provision of law. It hardly needs saying that the Court will be in a position to examine this aspect of the matter only if it considers the facts of each case and this can only be done if the appeals are treated as revisions whereafter the question can be examined by the High Court whether the Court subordinate to it has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested or acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity."
9. ' We regret to note that before the learned Judge in Chamber case of Abdul Aziz v. Abdul Rahim PLD 1984 SC 164 was cited by the petitioner's counsel in support of contention that the treatment of the plaint in suit No,231/1 of 1986 as an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was justified, but unfortunately instead of following the law laid in that case an attempt was made by the learned Judge to distinguish the same which was not the correct approach. We, accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the order of Peshawar High Court and restore the order of District Judge, Peshawar dated 11-11-1990. The case will now go back to the Civil Judge, Peshawar, to whom the case was remanded by the District Judge, Peshawar, for disposal in accordance with law. There will be no order as to cost.