Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---.--- ---.----Ss. 12(2) & 11, O.VII, R.11 & O.II, R.2---.---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss.5, 14 & Art.181---.---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42---.---Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.44---.---Writ petition---.---Suit for declaration---.---Compromise decree, setting aside of---.---Limitation---.---Condonation of delay---.---Wrong forum, choice of---.---Effect---.---Negligence of litigant---.---Good faith---.---Due care and caution---.---Scope---.---Application for setting aside compromise decree was rejected by the Trial Court but case was remanded by the Appellant Court---.---Validity---.---Applicants had not been impleaded as party in the suit in which compromise decree was passed---.---Applicants being stranger could avail the remedy provided by law under S.12(2), C.P.C.---.---Applicants preferred to file a suit which was not competent in view of S.12(2),. C.P.C.---.---Applicant again filed an appeal after rejection of their plaint and they did not choose the right forum forthwith---.---When a party had chosen a wrong forum then he could not say that prosecution on his behalf was in good faith and he was entitled to the condonation of delay under Ss.5 & 14 of Limitation Act, 1908---.---Appellate Court was not competent to extend the benefit of choosing the wrong forum to the applicants and had travelled beyond the statutory law---.---Though no limitation was prescribed for moving the court under S.12(2), C.P.C. for setting aside a decree obtained through fraud and deception however, it had been ruled that Art.181 of Limitation Act, 1908 would be applicable which had provided 3 years limitation to an aggrieved person from the date when he got knowledge about such a decree or ---.---Applicants gained knowledge of compromise decree on 9-6-2004 and they filed application under S. 12)(2), C.P.C. on 24-2-2010 which was time-barred---.---Section 12(2), C.P.C. had barred independent suit for challenging a decree or on the basis of fraud and had provided a speedy remedy for cancellation of such a decree---.---Trial Court and Appellant Court had rightly rejected the plaint…