' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1973) calls in question the order, dated 26-7-1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur, whereby the revision of the petitioner was dismissed and the order, dated 6-5-1996 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalpur was affirmed resultantly the petitioner's application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. Was dismissed.
2. The relevant facts are that the respondents filed a suit for declaration in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalpur, Wherein the defendants having appeared had also submitted their written statement. It was thereafter that respondent No,1 filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. In the same Court. Since in the suit filed by the respondents decree of the Court had been challenged which decree was also challenged in application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. In the suit filed by the respondents thereby praying that the plaint in the suit is liable to be rejected. The only ground taken in the application was to the effect that in accordance with law decree passed in a suit can only be challenged by way of an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. And not otherwise, therefore, the suit filed by the respondents is barred by law. The said application was duly contested and the learned trial Court proceeded to dismiss the same vide its order, dated 6-5-1996. The petitioner filed a revision against the abovesaid order, which too was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur, vide his order, dated 26-4-1997. Not content, the petitioner has proceeded to challenge the above said orders in the present Constitutional petition.
3. Confronted right at the very outset that the provisional Court exercising the supervisory jurisdiction had seen the order of original Court and come to the conclusion that no illegality had been committed by the Court below, therefore, no writ petition could be competently filed before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it is no use facing a trial when the controversy can be decided on the pleadings of the parties. I have perused the plaint in the suit filed by the respondents and have found that various parcels of land formed subject-matter of the same and that the said parcels of land are situate in different Mauzas while the decree has been obtained in regard to land situate only in one Mauza. Now it is well settled that the plaint cannot be partially rejected. The relief which was claimed by the respondents on the basis of averments in the plaint are manifold in nature, therefore, it could not be successfully maintained that a challenge to the decree forming subject-matter of the suit alone is the subject-matter of application under section 12(2), C.P.C. In any case, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner for the matter would be decided after the trial of the suit. It has been held in Ghulam Hussain and another v. Malik Shahbaz and another 1985 SCM R 1925 that High Court would decline to interfere in its Constitutional jurisdiction in matter arising out of civil suit wherein plaint had not been rejected.
Additionally order passed in provisional jurisdiction cannot be successfully assailed in Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. If any authority is needed reference may be made to Manzoor Hugsain Shah and 15 others v. Allah Bachaya Khan and 5 others 1986 CLC 1813. Needless to add that the provisional jurisdiction is almost akin to the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court and if this Court starts looking into the provisional order it would tantamount to entertaining a second provisional against the original order, which is specifically prohibited under the law. It is no doubt true that in certain cases where the orders passed by the provisional Court are found to be without jurisdiction and nullity in the eye of law or some patent illegality is pointed out on the record, this Court may exercise its Constitutional jurisdiction but normally this Court has; oath to exercise such a jurisdiction.
4. In result this petition is found to be meritless, therefore, the same is dismissed with costs.