1. ' I have heard the argument of Mr. Muhammad Muzaffarul Hag, learned counsel for the applicant.
2. After he concluded his arguments, the applicant came forward and stated that his counsel is not prepared with the case and he may be allowed to argue his matter. The applicant was also heard, ' It appears from the pleadings that a Suit No.447 of 1989 was filed by the applicant, which was contested by the defendant and by judgment dated 28-3-2001, the said suit was dismissed on merits. The judgment discussed the entire evidence issue-wise in detail. This judgment has not been appealed against by the applicant/plaintiff and instead an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was preferred by the applicant/plaintiff, on 15-2-2003 almost aftef two years of the passing of the impugned judgment. It has been pleaded in the application that the impugned judgment has been obtained by misrepresentation of fact. The 'applicant/plaintiff has not stated the reasons for not filing the appeal in his application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Even he has not stated in the application as to how and when he has acquired the knowledge of passing of the impugned judgment. In fact the ground urged/raised in the application travels beyond the scope of section 12(2), C.P.C. The application under section 12(2) only lies if 4he judgment/decree was obtained by a party either by fraud or by misrepresentation. In the present case, both these ingredients are missing. Section 12(2), C.P.C. Is not substitute of appeal and can only be invoked, if it is shown that the judgment/decree has been obtained on the back of a party by playing fraud upon the Court.
3. The scope, therefore, in these proceedings, as per established law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is unambiguous. The wisdom behind legislating the provisions of section 12(2), C.P.C. Was to avoid multitude of proceedings.
4. ' The applicant/plaintiff as well as his counsel failed to cite any case-law in support of their contention that a person, who fails to prefer an appeal can claim relief by invoking the provisions of section 12(2), C.P.C., as these provisions are neither in the nature of alternate remedy nor substitute of an appeal. It appears that since the applicant/plaintiff had failed to avail the remedy of the appeal has resorted to section 12(2), C.P.C. Which the law does not permit. The application is, therefore, being misconceived merits dismissal with costs.