2002 PLP 1998 (SCMR)

TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is sought against the order dated 29‑2‑2000 whereby Review Application No.7‑C of 2000 filed by the petitioners in Civil Revision No.515‑D of. 1997 was dismissed by learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan. The facts succinctly narrated for the disposal of this petition are that Civil Revision No.515‑D of 1997 was filed by the respondent Mst. Bakhtan, sister of the predecessor‑in‑interest of Rasool Bakhsh who died issueless in the year 1944, against the judgments dated 24‑5‑1995 and 9‑5‑1997 passed respectively by the learned Civil Judge, Alipur, and the learned Additional District Judge, Alipur, dismissing the claim of the respondent. Aforesaid civil revision came up for hearing on 20‑10‑1999 and a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court vide his judgment dated 20‑10‑1999 accepted the same and set aside the judgments and decrees of the Courts below while decreeing the suit of the respondent. The petitioners moved Review Application No.7‑C of 2000 in the High Court on the ground that above civil revision had been decided in absence of their learned counsel who was on general adjournment on 20‑10‑1999. An exception was also taken .to the merits of the said judgment. . The learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, after examining the entire material, held that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that he was on general adjournment on the date of hearing of civil revision was not substantiated from the record. It is to be appreciated that even the learned counsel who had been marked present in the order of civil revision did not tender any affidavit in support of his said stance. As far as other ground taken by the learned counsel was concerned, the same also did not find favour with the learned Single Judge who dealt with the same in detail in the impugned order dismissing the aforementioned review application. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. We have? heard the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the material placed on record with their assistance. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that the review application was admittedly filed after more than three and a half months of the decision of the civil revision. A reading of the impugned order demonstrates that the petitioners' learned counsel was present during the course of hearing of the civil revision and he failed to establish his plea that he was on general adjournment on 20‑10‑1999, the day on which the aforesaid civil revision was decided. Said learned counsel had not put in any affidavit in support of his above contention. In this view of the matter, it cannot be held that the petitioners had not been granted 'any opportunity by the learned Single Judge at the time of hearing of the civil revision. We have also noticed that in the judgment of above civil revision, learned Single Judge has made reference to the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioners who supported the judgments impugned in the civil revision. We have further noticed that the learned Single Judge has discussed the entire merits of the case and has reversed the findings of the Courts below by advancing cogent reasons. Resultantly, keeping in mind the aforesaid circumstances; we are of the view that the impugned order of dismissal of review application filed by. the petitioners in the above civil revision is free from any legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court. The instant petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. Q.M.H./M.A.K./N‑68/S????????? Petition dismissed.