2015 PLP 188 (GBLR)

MUZAFFAR ALI, J.

This petition for leave to appeal has been directed against the order/Judgment dated 18-08-2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan, whereby the suit filed by the present respondents has been decreed ex parte by accepting the revision petition No. C. Rev.69/2013. The brief facts of the case are as such that, the present respondents filed Suit No. 11/2008 before the learned Civil Judge Hunza. The trial court dismissed the suit on merits. The present respondents being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the findings, appealed against the same before the learned District Judge Hunza/Nagar, but the Ist appeal has also got the same fate. The present respondents assailed the concurrent findings of the lower courts before the Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan through Revision Petition No. 69/2013. The learned Single Judge of Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan after receiving the revision petition issued notices to the present petitioners for their appearance before the Court and to defend the revision petition. The present petitioners despite service of summons failed to attend the Court and the learned Single Judge of Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan accepted the revision petition and decreed the suit property in favour of the respondents with costs for non-prosecution, hence, this petition for leave to appeal has been preferred before this Court. At the very outset of the arguments, we confronted the learned Counsel for the petitioners with the point that "the impugned order passed by the single Judge, Chief Court, Gilgit-Baltistan is ex parte on account of non-prosecution by the present petitioners, as such the impugned order can be challenged before Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan and how the petitioners filed the instant petition before this Court without exhausting the remedy available to them before the Chief Court." The learned counsel for the petitioners endeavored to meet the above point with the contention that there is no any specific provision in the C.P.C. to submit an application for restoration/re-admission of the revision petition, if the same is dismissed for default or accepted ex parte for non-prosecution. The counsel for the petitioners further stated that when a suit is dismissed in default or decreed ex parte, then Order IX, Rule 13 enable the aggrieved party to submit an application for setting aside the ex parte decree or to restore the suit dismissed in default, likewise, when an appeal is dismissed or accepted ex parte then Order XLI, Rules 19 and 21, C.P.C. are available to rescue the aggrieved party, but in case of revision neither there is any provision available in the C.P.C. to dismiss the revision petition in default or to pass an ex parte decree for non-prosecution. Similarly no any specific provision is available for restoration and setting aside of such like orders of the court. The supra points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners apparently are correct to the extent of non-availability of the provision in the C.P.C. for dealing the revision petition when the parties kept themselves absent from the courts of law, and also no specific provision is available in the C.P.C. for restoration of revision petition if dismissed in default. The other bitter coincide aspect with the above legal situation is that, the parties getting benefit of the same. Let theirselves absent from the courts without sufficient reasons, just to defeat and to prevent the process of law, when their case seems weak on merits. The courts in similar situation have no option but to invoke their inherent jurisdiction to deal the intentional delay tactics of the parties. The learned Judges even then must be vigilant to differentiate very carefully between willful absence of the parties and their absence because of inevitable circumstances to which human being faces. Since, the Courts dismiss the revision petitions in default or accept the revision petitions ex parte for non-prosecution in exercise of their inherent jurisdiction under section 151, C.P.C. as such aggrieved parties of such orders may also invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the Courts for setting aside such orders in proper cases. In the instant case, the petitioners have ignored the remedy available to them to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the courts in which the impugned order passed. The petitioners have come to this Court directly through this petition for leave to appeal. Therefore, leave to appeal is refused. The petitioners are first to exhaust the remedy available to them before the learned Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan, Gilgit. HBT/188/GB Leave to appeal refused.