1. ' MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI, J.---Through this Constitutional petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-- "It is therefore prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to admit the above Constitutional petition, call for the records of Civil Suit No,446 of 1995 from the Court of respondent No,2; Civil Revision Application No,46 of 2002 from the Court of respondent No,3, issue the notices to the respondents above named, after hearing the parties the impugned orders passed by the respondents Nos.2 and 3 be set aside, the suit filed by the respondent No,1 before the Court of respondent No,2 be dismissed with cost on consideration of the facts stated hereinabove, the above petition be allowed and/or pass any such other order, orders as this Honourable Court may deem think fit and proper in view of the circumstances of the case."
2. ' Brief facts of the case as disclosed in the petition by petitioner, Mst. Kalsoom Bano, are that the property bearing Quarter No,87, Block No,43, admeasuring 60 square yards, situated at Cement Line Keamari, Karachi originally belongs to one Dawood who used to pay dues to 'Babul Islam Housing Cooperative Society' Limited, Karachi. Respondent No,1, Adam claimed to have purchased the subject property from said Dawood by registered sale-deed and name of respondent No,1 was entered in the record of Babul Islam Housing Cooperative Society as sole owner. The said respondent No,1 being close relative of petitioner temporarily allowed her to stay in a portion of the said house on a condition that whenever the same would be required by the respondent No,1, the petitioner would vacate the same. In the year, 1994, the portion of the said house in possession of petitioner was required by the respondent. He requested the petitioner to vacate the same but she declined and instead filed a Suit No,755 of 1994 against the respondent. The respondent also filed a suit. Being No,446 of 1995 for possession, permanent injunction and mesne profits against the petitioner, which was decreed on 24-12-2001 by the learned trial Court viz. IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi. In the meantime, suit filed by the petitioner being No,755 of 1994 was also dismissed on 25-10-2001 under Order 17, rule 3, C.P.C. Petitioner did not file any appeal against the judgment and decree passed against her in either of the suits. Instead petitioner chose to file application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Same was dismissed vide Order dated 21-5-2001. Petitioner filed revision application on 29-10-2002 but the same was also dismissed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Karachi West, on the ground of limitation vide impugned order dated 23-12-2002.
3. ' Having heard the arguments of Mr. Muhammad Kalim Ahmed and Mst. Fehmida Khatoon, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record.
4. ' From the record, it appears that the petitioner failed to file any appeal against the judgment and decree of learned trial Court but chose to file an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Against the respondent No,1, which was dismissed and subsequently assailed in time-barred revision. No plausible explanation was put forth by the petitioner as to why the judgment and decree passed against her were not appealed. Provisions of section 12(2), C.P.C. Are not to be reported as a substitute of an appeal. Petitioner herself was very much party to the proceedings before the trial Court. It is not her case, she was not served or that judgment and decree was obtained behind her back. In the case of Muhammad Isma il v. Fazal Zada PLD 1996 SC 246, the plaintiff instead of filing appeal against order of rejection of plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C., rushed to the High Court with Constitution petition. The course adopted was not approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. Learned counsel was not able to meet the objection of limitation in filing the revision. Order on application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was passed on 21-5-2001 whereas revision was filed on 29- 10-2001. Limitation for revision as per section 115, C.P.C. Is 90 days from the date of judgment/order as the case may be. No jurisdictional error has been pointed out.
6. ' In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is found to be misconceived and not maintainable in law, which is accordingly dismissed in limine alongwith listed application.