MAUI< MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.--- This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 calls in question the 'revisional order of the District Judge, Narowal dated 12.10.1995, whereby the order dated 28.6.1992 of the Trial Court was set aside.
2. - This case has a chequered history. It is, however, not necessary to give the detailed facts, suffice it to say a decree was passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents on the basis of consenting written statement filed by the respondents, on 13.9.1972. The suit was filed only about 4 days before , on 9.9.1972. This consent decree was challenged by the respondents by filing a civil suit on 27.6.1981. However, that suit was withdrawn on 9.6.1965 and an application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. Was moved. The learned Trial Court framed the necessary issues, recorded the evidence of the parties and came. To the conclusion that decree was fraudulent but the application was dismissed as being barred by time. Aggrieved by that order, the respondents went in revision before the District Court which was of the view that as the decree was procured through fraud, the question of limitation did not arise. He further concluded that the matter could not have been decided without finding out the date of death of Sardar Muhammad Aslam. He accordingly framed an additional issue in the following form: "What is the actual date of death of Sardar Muhammad Aslam? OPP and remanded the case to the Trial Court.
3. Mr. S.M. Masood, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. Filed by the respondents and barred by time and as such the learned District Judge should not have interfered. It is also argued that the provisions under Section 12(2), C.P.C. Are not retrospective in nature and the decree already passed before the said provision was in force, should not have been challenged by filing an application under Section 12(2), C.P.C.
4. So far as the last contention is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners has himself brought to my notice the view taken by this Court in Noor Muhammad v. Additional District Judge, Chakwal, etc. (PLD 1994 Lah. 170) wherein it was held that as Section 12(2), C.P.C. Was a beneficial piece of legislation, it would apply to decrees already, passed before its enactment. As regards the point of limitation, it appears to be connected with the additional issue framed by the learned District Judge who has observed that limitation was a mixed question of law and facts and require production of evidence. In these circumstances, the objection taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case could not have bun remanded after framing an additional issue is not well-founded.
For all these reasons, this petition fails and is dismissed in limine.