' This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23:11-2001, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang by which he had dismissed a petition under section 12(2), C.P.C.
Filed by the petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the case are that an execution petition titled "Syed Ali Husnain Asim v.
Muhammad Younas" was pending in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Jhang for the execution of the decree passed by the said learned Court on 20-7-2000 for the recovery of an amount of Rs,4,50,000. While the execution petition was pending, the present petitioner filed a petition under section 12(2), C.P.C. On the ground that he had entered into an agreement to sell dated 31-3-1996 with Muhammad Younas concerning House No,427. Block-A Satellite Town, Jhang Saddar for an amount of Rs,3,00,000 and after making payment of Rs,2,80,000 as earnest money had obtained possession of the said property. Subsequently Muhammad Younas conspired with Syed Ali Husnain Asim to deprive him of the said property and a collusive suit on the basis of a Pronote was filed and which was decreed on the basis of the statement of Syed Ali Husnain Asim.
Muhammad Younas had never received any amount from Syed Ali Husnain Asim nor any Pronote had been executed and that Syed Ali Husnain Asim was never in a position to extend loan (to Muhammad Younas).
3. In the petition it was stated that the petitioner i,e, Ghulam Rasool had filed a suit for the specific performance of the agreement and which was pending before the learned Civil Judge at Jhang and that the impugned decree dated 20-4-2001 was based on fraud and collusion. It was also averred that even previously the petitioner i,e, Ghulam Rasool had filed a petition which was dismissed on 20-4-2001 on account of non-prosecution and the application for the restoration of the said petition had been withdrawn by him on 22-6-2001. Although he had called upon Syed Ali Husnain Asim etc. Repeatedly for getting the decree dated 20-7-2000 cancelled but they had refused to do so and hence the petition under section 12(2), C.P.C. It was prayed that the decree aforesaid (dated 20-7-2000) be set aside.
4. ' The reply to the application filed under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was filed on behalf of Syed Ali Husnain Asim while reply on behalf of Muhammad Younas was still to be filed when on 23-11-2001 no one appeared in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, on behalf of Ghulam Rasool petitioner and hence petition was dismissed on account of non-prosecution and hence the instant revision petition.
5. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
6. It has been mentioned in the petition under section 12(2), C.P.C. Itself that even previously the petitioner had filed the petition which had been dismissed for default on 2-4-2001 and the application for restoration of the said petition had been withdrawn by him on 22-6-2001. It is not understandable as to why a fresh petition under section 12(2), C.P.C. Would be competent after the dismissal of the previous petition. In any way, in case the petition under section 12(2), C.P.C. Had been dismissed for default on 23-11-2001, the obvious remedy which was available to the petitioner was to file an application for the restoration of the said petition. I do not think that the present revision petition is competent in any manner. It cannot be said in any way that the learned Additional District Judge has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in him by law or had exercised his jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity.
' Since no one had appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang, the said learned Court was clothed with authority to dismiss the petition on account of non-prosecution.
7. The instant revision petition is clearly misconceived and is not competent and hence is accordingly dismissed. Revision .