' Suit for declaration was filed by the petitioner against respondent No,2, who are husband and wife, claiming therein the ownership of the suit shop, on the basis of some entry in the Nikahnama in lieu of dower. The learned trial Court dismissed the said suit on 28-1-1997 whereagainst an appeal was filed by the petitioner, which was disposed on the basis of compromise between the parties on 14- 5-1997. Her suit was accordingly decreed.
2. Muhammad Nazir respondent No,1 had claimed an agreement, dated 5-10-1995 in his favour by Muhammad Rafique respondent No,2 and his suit for specific performance of the said agreement was pending. When he learned of this compromise he made an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Before the learned lower Appellate Court that compromise decree had been obtained from the Court collusively in order to frustrate the above agreement. The application was contested. The learned lower appellate Court after framing the issues and enabling the parties to produce evidence in support of their respective claims and considering the same has accepted the said application on 3-11-1999. Resultantly the petitioner was directed to file amended memo of appeal by adding the name of respondent No,1 Muhammad Nazir as respondent in the same. This civil revision petition is against the same.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither respondent No,1 was a necessary party in the litigation between the petitioner and respondent No,2 nor any such application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was competent. It is contended that petitioner being the plaintiff before the learned trial Court had the dominilitus in the proceedings and respondent No,1 cannot be impleaded contrary to her wishes. He has cited Muhammad Sharif v. Dr. Khurshid Anwar Mian reported as 1996 SCM R 781, Mst. Hamida Begum v. 'Muhammad Saleem reported as 1988 CLC 2456, Altaf Parekh v. Delments Construction Company reported as 1992 CLC 700 and Mst. Shaheen v. Karachi Building Control Authority reported as PLD 1997 Kar.
659.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Muhammad Nazir respondent No,1 contends that Muhammad Rafique had admitted the execution of agreement, dated 5-10-1995 in favour of respondent No,1 Muhammad Nazir whose suit for specific performance is pending. It is contended that a collusive move was conceived by the petitioner and respondent No,2 in order to defeat the rights of Muhammad Nazir respondent No,1 and obtained a declaration in his absence through a compromise before the learned lower appellate Court. It is contended that in the circumstances, respondent No,1 was very much interested in the result of litigation and his application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Has been rightly accepted by the learned lower appellate Court. Muhammad Rafique respondent No,2 is represented by a counsel who has not contested this revision petition but has admitted the execution of agreement, dated 5-10-1995 in favour of Muhammad Nazir respondent No,1
5. The petitioner and respondent No,2 are husband and wife who were married in the year 1965. On 5-10-1995 agreement to sell is stated to have been made by Muhammad Rafique respondent No,2 in favour of respondent No,1. A suit for declaration was filed thereafter by the petitioner claiming ownership of the suit property, which ultimately ended in a compromise decree in her favour before the learned lower appellate Court. In that litigation respondent No,1 Muhammad Nazir was not a party, who when learnt of the compromise decree filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Obviously compromise decree was treated as an impediment in the performance of agreement, dated 5-10-1995. He had, thus, a vital interest in the litigation and was rightly treated so by the learned lower appellate Court and allowed to be impleaded as a party to the appeal by setting aside the compromise decree. The precedents cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not relevant in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case as the said precedents proceeded on the basis of facts of those cases. Suffice. It to cite the latest pronouncement by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Khawaja Muhammad Yousaf v.
Federal Government through Ministry of Kashmir Affairs etc. Reported as 1999 SCM R 1516. It has been observed that "if a person is adversely affected by an order or judgment of a Court or Tribunal rendered in a proceeding to which he is not a party and to which proceeding C.P.C. Is applicable, he can file an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. For the reason that the word "person" and not judgment-debtor or his successor-in-interest or the words party to the suit, have been used as highlighted in the above report". Thus, the application filed by respondent No,1 before the learned lower appellate Court was competent.
6. For the above reasons, there is no illegality in the order of the learned Additional District Judge challenged in this civil revision petition. This petition has no merit, the same is accordingly dismissed.
Revision .