1. ' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was against an order of learned District Judge, Khushab dated 9-5-1993 passed in revision by which an order dated 7-1-1993 of the learned trial Court passed on an application under section 12(2) of Civil P.C.
2. Was set aside by him and the case was remanded to it for deciding of it on merits in accordance with law.
3. ' Relevant facts for the decision of this petition briefly are:---Muhammad Zarif owned 217 'Canals, 11 Marlas of agricultural land at Mauza Golaywali in Tehsil and District Khushab. On 18-2-1986, he agreed for its sale or Samad Khan and Muhammad Aslam, sons of Muhammad Khan of Mauza Golaywali for the sale price of Rs,2,50,000. Since there was a dispute about the transaction between them, they agreed for its resolution through an arbitration of one Muhammad Nawaz, son of Sultan Ahmad. By agreement reduced in writing on 18-12-1986, Muhammad Zarif on one side, and, Samad Khan and Muhammad Aslam on the other agreed for the appointment of Muhammad Nawaz as Sole Arbitrator for decision of the dispute between them. On the same day, the Arbitrator gave award in writing in favour of Samad Khan and Muhammad Aslam. Petitioners applied on 4-3-1986 to the Civil Court at Jauharabad for making award the rule of the Court. Muhammad Zarif appeared in Court on 18-3-1986 and admitted the award being made rule of the Court and passing of a decree on it. The Arbitrator was also in attendance and the trial Court recorded his statement. A decree on award was made on the same day by the Civil Court.
4. ' Mst. Bhag Bhari is daughter of Muhammad Zarif. Mst Hayat Bibi was his wife. They instituted a civil suit on 19-6-1987, for perpetual injunction for stopping Muhammad Zarif from transferring his land to other defendants in the suit.. Samad and Muhammad Aslam were also the defendants in the suit. It was asserted that Muhammad Zarif was an old person of unsound mind and was incapable to transfer his land. The suit was contested by the defendants. Muhammad Zarif was also shown to have filed his written statement. Suit filed by Mst Bhag Bhari and Mst. Hayat Bibi was eventually dismissed on 13-4-1989.
5. ' On 17-2-1990, Mst. Bhag Bhari alongwith Mst. Hayat Bibi presented a petition under section 12(2) of Civil P.C. Against Samad Khan, Muhammad Aslam vendees of the land and also Muhammad Nawaz who had acted as Arbitrator for setting aside of the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 24-3-1986 on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation etc. Petitioners contested the petition on number of grounds including bar of res judicata and limitation. On 5-3-1991, necessary issues were settled by the trial Court for decision of the application under section 12(2) of Civil P.C.
6. And the same was adjourned for taking of evidence in support of it by the applicants, now respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the writ petition. Despite a few adjournments, the respondents could not produce evidence. Sometimes later, the petitioners submitted a petition under Order VII, rule 11 of Civil P.C. For a summary rejection of the application under section 12(2) of Civil P.C. Respondents contested the application. On 7-1-1993, the trial Court accepted the application filed under Order VII, rule 11, Civil P.C. And dismissed the petition on the ground of bar of res judicata and limitation.
7. ' Respondents preferred a revision from the decision of the trial Court. Learned District Judge allowed the revision and upon setting aside of the order by the trial Court remanded the matter for its decision afresh on issues settled in the case. This order of learned District Judge is sought to be quashed in extraordinary jurisdiction by this Court.
8. ' It was urged that the application under section 12(2), Civil P.C. Was barred by limitation and the judgment and decree passed in the earlier suit filed by Mst. Bhag Bhari and Mst. Hayat Bibi was res judicata of the points taken in it. It was argued that it was eminently a fit case for invoking of Order VII, rule 11 of Civil P.C. For a summary dismissal of the application under section 12(2), Civil P.C. In this behalf, learned counsel referred to Munawar Ahmad Noori Sarfraz Ahmad Khan 1986 CLC 899, which holds that Article 181 of the Limitation Act governed application under section 12(2), Civil P.C.
9. ' Rule 11, Order VII, Civil P.C. Applied to rejection of plaint on the grounds specified in it. On its language, it was inapplicable to an application filed under section 12(2) of Civil P.C. Nonetheless, the Court had inherent jurisdiction to prevent frivolity and put an end to it for avoidance of wastage of public time and unnecessary expense of the parties. If upon consideration of the material at the initial stage, the Court is of the view that further exercise shall be a futility, it has the power to bury the case instituted before it. However, if the matter was serious and required investigation, it shall proceed to try it in a formal manner. Summary rejection of the plaint at the inception envisaged in rule 11, Order VII of Civil P.C. Or summary dismissal of a case under inherent jurisdiction of the Court could be resorted only if upon examination of the matter, its further trial was considered wholly unnecessary. In the instant case, the trial Court itself had framed issues for determination and posted the case for taking of evidence in support of them. Notwithstanding that, it proceeded to reject the application filed under section 12(2) of Civil P.C. Without its trial. Whether the application under section 12(2), Civil P.C. Was barred by limitation in terms of Article 181 of the Limitation Act or plea of res judicata prevented its investigation could only be resolved upon taking evidence from the parties. Muhammad Zarif is dead. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were his legal heirs. He had no male issue. He was shown to have alienated his entire holding for a sum of Rs,2,50,000. Whether he did so or not by being a party to the Arbitration agreement, the award and making it the rule of the Court were all questions to be tried in a formal way. Similarly, the effect of the filing of earlier suit by respondent No, 1 and written statement ascribed to Muhammad Zarif required similar treatment.
10. Summary examination of these important points for ordering dismissal of the application under section 12(2) c of Civil P.C. Was unwarranted. In my opinion, the case required a formal trial and also evidence from the parties. Therefore, the revisional Court rightly intervened to correct the error and set the matter right for trial on merits in accordance with law. I could see no infirmity in the course adopted by the Court in revision. Its decision could not be termed illegal or characterized as without jurisdiction. In fact, it was in aid of a fair trial and was conducive to the advancement of cause of justice. Upon this view of the matter, I felt much reluctant to interfere in equitable jurisdiction of this Court. The case must be thoroughly thrashed out by allowing the parties to give evidence on its different facets.