' Instant writ petition under Art.199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is directed against the order, dated 20-11-1998 passed - by the learned Additional District Judge, Burewala, confirming the order, dated 28-5-1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Burewala, dismissing the application moved by the petitioner under section 12(2), C.P.C.
2. Briefly stated that facts are that Abdul Rehman respondent No,3 is husband of the petitioner. He owed a sum of Rs,3,50,750 to Muhammad Ismail respondent No,2. As dispute over the payment arose between Abdul Rehman and Muhammad Ismail, so an arbitrator was appointed who gave his award. Then Abdul Rehman moved an application for making that award as rule of Court.
Consequently the said award was made rule of Court on 24-5-1997.. According to this decision Muhammad Ismail respondent No,2 deposited a sum of Rs,1,19,250 in the Court. As per award it was decided that Abdul Rehman shall execute sale-deed in respect of House No,94-I on 25-6-1997 and shall deliver its possession on 25-11-1997.
3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that house which is subject-matter of the rule of the Court belonged to Abdul Rehman respondent No,3 who gave it to her in lieu of dower vide agreement, dated 10-6-1992, that on the basis of said agreement she filed a suit for declaration against her husband on 9-7-1997, claiming herself to be owner of the house, that Abdul Rehman filed a consent written statement on 13-11-1997 and finally her suit was decided on 3-12- 1997, that on coming to know about rule of 'Court she challenged the Same on 12-11-1997 by moving an application under section 12(2), C.P.C., that Muhammad Ismail submitted his reply on 17-12-1997 whereas Abdul Rehman filed his reply on 18-5-1998, that after hearing learned counsel for the parties the Trial Court dismissed the said application vide order, dated 28-5-1998, feeling aggrieved of the said order she filed a revision petition which was also dismissed on 20-11-1998.
Hence the instant writ petition.
4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
5. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that order, dated 28-5-1998 has been passed by the Trial Court without framing issues, so the same has not been passed in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it, as such the same is not sustainable in the eye of law, and relied upon Hassan Din v. Hafiz Abdus Salam and others (PLD 1991 Supreme Court 65).
6. From the facts referred above it is evident that an arbitration took place between Abdul Rehman, husband of the present petitioner, and Muhammad Ismail regarding the house which is being claimed by the petitioner to have been given to her by her husband in lieu of dower. Then an application was filed on 17-5-1994 for making that award as rule of Court and the same was disposed of on 24-5-1997. As per said award Muhammad Ismail respondent No,2 had to deposit a sum of Rs,1,19,250 and sale-deed had to be executed after 25-6-1997 and possession was to be handed over on 25-11-1997. As per stand of petitioner she came to know about the rule of Court when she attended the Court on 9 7 1997 to pursue her suit filed against her husband and in which he (her husband) had filed a consent written statement.
7. As per record arbitration proceedings remained pending between Muhammad Ismail and Abdul Rehman, respondents Nos.2 and 3, from 17-5-1994 to 24-5-1997 regarding disputed house. Thus, it was in the knowledge of Abdul Rehman that he had ceased to be owner of the said house on 24-5- 1997, but even then he submitted a consent written statement in the suit filed by his wife i,e, petitioner. It is very strange that on the one hand Abdul Rehman relinquished his rights in favour of Muhammad Ismail regarding disputed house and on the other hand was admitting the claim of his wife over that very property. All these facts clearly show that Abdul Rehman was actually playing fraud not with his wife but with Muhammad Ismail and wanted to frustrate the order, dated 24-5- 1997. It has come o record that an amount of Rs,1,19,250 has been deposited by Muhammad Ismail and execution application has been filed for obtaining possession. It is a clear cut case of fraud which Abdul Rehman wants to play with the active connivance of his wife i,e, petitioner. There was no need of framing any issue and of recording any evidence. Both the Courts below have rightly passed the impugned order. There is no force in this writ petition and the same is dismissed in limine.