' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---All the above petitions will be disposed of by this order.
2. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judge in Chamber whereby the order passed by the learned Civil Judge accepting application under section 12 (2), C.P.C. Filed by the respondents and setting aside the decree passed in the suit for declaration in favour of the petitioner, was upheld.
3. The petitioner (in C.Ps. 370 and 371/93) had filed a suit against respondents Nos. 1 to 5 on 17-7- 1980 for a declaration that he was the owner of agricultural land in dispute. Written statement was filed by Mr. Amir Ali Malik, Advocate on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 5 conceding the claim of the petitioner and on that basis a decree was passed on 27-7-1980. On 3-9-1980, respondents Nos. 1 to 5 filed an application under section 12 (2), C.P.C. Alleging that said decree had been procured through fraud and misrepresentation. The petitioner contested the application and the learned trial Court framed issues for deciding the application. After recording evidence and hearing the arguments the learned trial Court by its order dated 26-2-1990 set aside the decree also holding that Mr. Amir Ali Malik, Advocate, who had filed written statement on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 5 was not authorized to do so. The petitioner filed revision application against the said order, which was dismissed by the learned Judge in Chamber. While dismissing the revision application, it was observed that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner who can "demonstrate before the Court that he had become the owner of the property in dispute on the basis of agreement in his favour after paying the due consideration". The learned Judge further observed that after having held that the decree was obtained by fraud, it was not necessary to determine whether respondent No,1 had paid the consideration due under the agreement of sale to the respondents. It was further observed as follows:- "Although non-payment of consideration could be a fact indicative of fraud being played by respondent No,1, but this aspect of the matter need not be commented upon any further, as consequent of the setting aside of the decree, the suit is pending adjudication before the trial Court and this is one of the issues which have to be decided by it. Any decision taken by this Court in these proceedings on this issue or any comment made is likely to prejudice the case of the parties and for this reason I have refrained from deciding this issue."
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner recounting the entire proceedings of the case and referring to certain observations and evidence recorded, contended that no case of fraud or misrepresentation had been made out. This contention cannot be maintained as both the Courts have duly considered the record and evidence and given concurrent finding against the petitioner, which does not suffer from any illegality. In this regard no interference is called for.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that if the evidence and the observation of the impugned judgment are maintained, it will cause prejudice to the petitioner during trial. The apprehension of the learned counsel is misplaced. As quoted above, the learned Judge in Chamber has refrained from making any observation on the merits of the case. Furthermore, the evidence and the observations were only restricted to the limited controversy agitated under section 12(2), C.P.C. Mr. Amir Alam, learned counsel for the respondents states that the observations made in the impugned judgment and in the order of the learned trial Court will not affect the merits of the case nor shall they be taken into consideration by the trial Court nor will they influence the decision in the suit on merits. Both the counsel agree that the observations in the impugned judgment will not influence the trial and further that on issue No,6 framed by the Court regarding payment of consideration, the parties will be free to lead fresh evidence during trial or accept and adopt the evidence recorded during proceedings under section 12 (2), P.P.0 as permissible under law. Subject to these statements, leave is refused.