' This judgment shall decide Civil Revision No, 3931 of 1994 and Civil Revision No, 3932 of 1994, as common questions are involved.
2. Decrees were passed by a Conciliation Court of Halqa No,94, Lahore on the applications filed by the respondents in these two cases against the petitioner. These were money decrees and were passed on 21-7-1991. Applications were filed for execution of these decrees before the learned trial Court (Civil Judge). In response to a notice issued by the learned Executing Court, the petitioner filed applications under section 12(2), Civil Procedure Code read with sections 47 and 151 Civil Procedure Code. In both these two cases, it was stated in the application that Conciliation Court had, no jurisdiction and that ,the respondent"' has,, practised fraud and misrepresentation in the matter of obtaining the decrees. The learned trial Court dismissed the applications vide an order dated 16-5-1993 while the first appeals were dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Lahore on 29-6-1994.
3. The learned, 'counsel for the petitioner contends -that since it was his case that the decrees are without jurisdiction, the Executing Court could have gone into the question and was fully authorised to declare the decrees to be without jurisdiction. In support of. This contention he relies on the case of Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Muhammad Saeed (PLD 1961 SC 192). No one has appeared for the respondents in these cases.
4. I have given some thought to the contention of the learned counsel. As stated by me above, not only that the contents of the application make out a case of absence of jurisdiction, fraud and misrepresentation but the application has also been titled as to be under section 12(2), Civil Procedure Code. There is no cavil with the proposition laid down in the said judgment being relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, this judgment relates to a period long before the year 1980 when section 12(2) was added in Civil Procedure Code. The effect of the said provision is that now a decree or order or a decision or a proceedings can be challenged on the ground of absence of jurisdiction, fraud and misrepresentation only by filing an application before the. Court who had passed the final order. This being so, the learned Courts below have very rightly held that they are not in a position to go into the said question as the matter has to be decided by the Court which passed the final decree.
5. In this view of the matter, both the civil revisions are dismissed, however, the petitioner, if so advised, may file application.
6. No order as to the costs. #EndJudgment