' Brief facts of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration against respondent No,3 for a direction to the Revenue Authorities to correct the entry in the Revenue papers. The suit was contested by the respondent No,3 and it was decreed vide judgment and decree, dated 14-1-1984 in favour of the petitioner. An application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was moved by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 namely Bashir Ahmad and Abdul Sittar against the petitioner for setting aside the judgment and decree, dated 14-1-1984 on the basis of fraud, misrepresentation and without notice to the petitioners. This application was contested, issues were formulated and evidence was led by both the parties. Consequently, the learned trial Court accepted the application, set aside the judgment, dated 14-1-1984 vide order, dated 9-4-1990.
Feeling aggrieved against this order, the petitioner instead of filing a revision filed an appeal before the learned Appellate Court on 8-5-1990. The learned Appellate Court vide order, dated 29-6-1994 dismissed the appeal being incompetent with the observation that on an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. No right of appeal exists and the Court has no jurisdiction to convert this appeal into revision petition. The learned appellate Court cited Gahna Khan v. Mitha PLJ 1983 Lah.
166.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Karamat Hussain and others v. Muhammad Zaman and others where it is held that second appeal brought before the High Court exhibiting certain features which demonstrated that it fell within scope of interference under section 115, (7.c C.P.C., High Court, should, in such case, exercise its jurisdiction under said provision of law Abdul Latif Niazi v. Punjab Province through Collector, Multan 1985 SCM R 27 on the same point, and Lal Khan and another v. Rehmatullah and 5 others 1996 CLC 1696 where it is held that order under section 12(2), C.P.C. Is not appealable but is reviseable. The learned Appellate Court has got power to convert any appeal into revision and vice versa provided such decision was not otherwise affected by any other law like that of limitation.
3. Respondent present in Court submits that the learned trial Court has accepted his application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Petitioner did not challenge the judgment of the learned trial Court in revision, therefore, it was rightly dismissed by the Appellate Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person. It is very strange that the learned Appellate. Court has cited Gahna Khan v. Mitha PLJ 1983 Lah. 166 and has not read the judgment. It is held in this judgment that although the order under section 12(2) is not appealable but reviseable but the appeal may be converted into revision provided it is not hit by any law.
5. I have seen the appeal which is wrongly filed within the limitation, therefore, the case of the petitioner was not hit by any law. The substantial justice cannot be denied to a litigant on mere technicalities. The learned appellate Court had jurisdiction to convert the same into revision and decide the case on merits after being satisfied that it was not hit by any other law. Therefore, I accept the instant writ petition, set aside the judgment, dated 19-6-1994 being the outcome of error of law and remand the case to the learned District Judge, Toba Tek Singh to decide the case himself or entrust the same to other competent forum and direct the subordinate Court to decide this appeal purely on merit after fulfilling the legal formalities within one month of receipt of this judgment.
6. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Toba Tek Singh on 21-12-1999.