' NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.---Petitioner Abdul Hameed has sought leave to appeal against the judgment dated 5-12-1997 of a Division Bench of the Sindh High Court dismissing his High Court Appeal. We have heard the arguments of Mr. Muzaffarul Haq, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and have referred to the relevant record.
2. Background of this case is narrated in the following paragraph of the impugned judgment:- ' "Brief facts of the case are that the respondents Nos.1 to 3 filed an application being M. Application No, 3 of 1997 in the Court of District Judge seeking a direction against Mutawali (appellant) but the said application was dismissed by the learned District Judge on the ground of having no jurisdiction consequently they filed Suit No,1090 of 1988 on 11-12-1988, in this Court for accounts, injunction, removal of Mutawali and appointment of new Mutawali against the appellant which was decreed ex parte on 11-2-1990. The appellant filed C.M.A. No,1835 of 1990 under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. To have the order and decree set aside and also filed C.M.A. No,1837 of 1990 under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. Which were dismissed on 12-5-1991 and the J.M. No, 49 of 1990 under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was also filed which too was 'dismissed on 2-2-1993. Thereafter High Court Appeal No,193 of 1991 was filed by the appellant before this Court which was also dismissed on 17th December, 1991.
The appellant preferred Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,356-K of 1992 before Supreme Court of Pakistan which was also dismissed on 2-11-1992. The appellant has again impugned the order dated 2-2-1993 passed by learned Single Judge on J.M. Application No,49 of 1990 in this appeal."
3. Attention of Mr. M. Muzaffarul Haq, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner was drawn to the following observation in the impugned judgment:-- ' "In fact, the appellant had taken the same pleas in H.C.A. No,193 of 1991 which was dismissed by this Court on 17-12-1991 and the said decision was upheld by Supreme Court of Pakistan on 21-1- 1989 as said above. Nothing has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant as to how the impugned order could be said to be without jurisdiction as to invoke the provisions of subsection (2) of section 12, C.P.C. The judgment and decree passed as well, could not be said to suffer from jurisdictional defect for non-compliance of mandatory provisions of law, considering also that the appellant agitated the same pleas before this Court in appeal as well as before the Supreme Court of Pakistan which pleas being of the merits of the case hence the appellant could not succeed because he could not show that 'his case could fall within the purview of subsection
(2) of section 12, C.P.C. Mere mentioning the words 'fraud, misrepresentation and want of jurisdiction' would not itself be sufficient to hold that the appellant has made out a case within the four corners of provisions of subsection (2) of section 12, C.P.C. The appellant has failed to show that there was fraud or misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction in passing the judgment and decree."
' Learned counsel for the petitioner could not controvert the aforesaid finding of the High Court. We have also perused the memo. Of the petition filed by the petitioner before this Court and we do not find any ground taken to challenge the aforesaid finding of the High Court.
' We find no infirmity or lacuna in the impugned judgment to call for interference. The petition is dismissed and leave is refused.