This revision petition is directed against order, dated 14-7-1996 passed by Mr. Abdul Sattar, learned Civil Judge Ist Class, Lodhran, whereby he dismissed the application moved by the petitioner under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. In the Court below. It was observed by the learned Civil Judge while dismissing the application that the matter raised therein has already been reflected in Issue No.4 and as such there is no ground for allowing the application particularly when evidence in the case has been completed and its conclusion is within sight.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the present suit was filed to challenge that decree dated 6-7-1988 on the ground that it was illegal being based on fabricated facts and also being collusive. As such it could not be challenged in a subsequent suit in any Court except the Court which passed the same as enjoined by section 12(2), C.P.C. It was, therefore, contended that the learned trial Judge fell in error to dismiss the application to non-suit the plaintiff under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.
3. While hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have been taken through certified copies placed on record relating to previous suit as well as the present suit. The present suit was filed on 11-8-1989 and was resisted since then by the present petitioner/defendant. In view of the controversial pleadings of the parties 13 issues were struck by the learned Civil Judge on 24-9-1992 whereafter full-fledged trial opened up which, as observed above is at concluding stage. A perusal of all the issues struck in the case shows that the points raised in the petition moved by the petitioner/defendant under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. In the Court below were reflected not only in Issue No.4, but also touched Issues Nos.3, 6, 7 and 8. The question of misrepresentation, fraud, and forgery cannot be adequately answered without examining evidence which has already been brought on record. It is thus obvious that the learned Civil Judge has rightly dismissed the application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. With the observation that the question raised therein is reflected in issues and shall be decided while disposing of the issues framed in the suit. It is obvious that the plaintiff cannot be non-suited on technical grounds particularly when the questions of fact, such as commission of fraud, forgery or misrepresentation are raised.
4. In view of the above discussion, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade me that there was any failure of justice or that the impugned order suffered front any latent or patent defect, calling for interference by this Court on its revision al jurisdiction. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed being meritless with the observation that the learned Civil Judge shall dismissed proceed with the case expeditiously and will decide the same finally within three months.