-Order passed by appellate Court also reflects that words "Suit be decreed" were added in order sheet through a manual type writer whereas rest of order sheet was a computer print-

 PLJ 2022 Lahore (Note) 128

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--

----S. 12(2)--Suit for declaration--Compromise during execution proceedings--Statement of petitioner's counsel was recorded--Allegation of--Alteration in order sheet of appellate Court--Application u/S. 12(2), CPC was dismissed--Limitation--Challenge to-- The issue of limitation in facts and circumstances of case was a mixed question of law and fact which could not be resolved without recording evidence of--Order passed by appellate Court also reflects that words "Suit be decreed" were added in order sheet through a manual type writer whereas rest of order sheet was a computer print--Prima facie, allegation of alteration of order sheet required inquiry for which evidence ought to have been recorded by ADJ--Revision petition allowed.     [Para 6] A & B

M/s. Muhammad Mushtaq Dhoon and Naila Mushtaq Dhoon Advocate for Petitioners.

Malik Muhammad Shahid Iqbal Awan, Advocate for Respondent.

Date of hearing 30.9.2021.

 PLJ 2022 Lahore (Note) 128
Present: Shams Mehmood Mirza, J
Mst. ALAM KHATOON etc.--Petitioners
versus
NADEEM ABBAS--Respondent
C.R No. 56833 of 2017, decided on 30.9.2021.

Order

This revision calls into question order dated 07.07.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge whereby the application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) filed by the petitioners was dismissed.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration against the respondent in which a decree was passed in their favour whereafter an execution application was filed by them. The respondent also filed a suit for recovery of dowry article against the petitioners which was dismissed. He filed two appeals against the judgments of the trial Court. During the pendency of execution application, the respondent filed three more suits for partition against the petitioners. On account of a compromise inter se the parties, it was decided that the litigation shall be withdrawn. The statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners was recorded in the appeals regarding the compromise for setting aside of the judgment and decree passed in the two suits. The respondent also withdrew the three partition suits. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent who was clerk in the District Courts maneuvered the words "suit be decreed" in the order sheet after the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners it may be emphasized are only aggrieved of the alleged alteration in the order passed in the appeal filed by the respondent against the judgment and decree of the trial Court in the suit for recovery of dowry articles. It is furthermore submitted that on gaining knowledge about the alteration made in the order of the appellate Court, the petitioner promptly filed the application under Section 12(2), CPC which was summarily dismissed by the Additional District Judge.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that sanctity is attached to the judicial order of the Court and as such the Additional District Judge rightly dismissed the application under Section 12(2), CPC.

4. Arguments heard, record perused.

5. The Additional District Judge through the impugned order dismissed the application under Section 12(2) CPC on two grounds. It was held that the said application was barred by limitation and that sufficient cause was not shown for condonation of delay. It was also stated that presumption of correctness is attached to the judicial record.

6. The issue of limitation in the facts and circumstances of the case was a mixed question of law and fact which could not be resolved without recording evidence of the parties. Furthermore, order dated 28.11.2013 passed by the appellate Court also reflects that the words "Suit be decreed" were added in the order sheet through a manual type writer whereas the rest of the order sheet was a computer print. Prima facie, the allegation of alteration of the order sheet required inquiry for which evidence ought to have been recorded by the Additional District Judge.

7. In this view of the matter, this revision is allowed and order dated 07.07.2017 is set aside with the result that the application under Section 12(2) CPC shall be deemed to be pending before the Additional District Judge who shall decide it afresh after framing of the issues and recording of the evidence of the parties.

(Y.A.)  Petition allowed