1997 PLP 1722 (CLC)

Muhammad Aslam Khan v. Mst. Akbar Jan and others 1991 (1.C 3607 and Mirza Lal Hussain v. Custodian of Evacuee Property 1992 SCIZ 21 jet ref. Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate for Appellants. Raja Shiraz Kiyani, Advocate‑General and Nazir Ahmad Qadri for Respondents. Date of hearing: 14th January, 1997. BASHARAT AHMED SHAIKH, J.‑‑‑On the initiative of the appellants a reference was filed by the Collector Land Acquisition before the learned District Judge Muzaffarabad. The District Judge closed the evidence of the appellants on the ground that numerous opportunities had been given to them for producing evidence but they failed to do so. A revision was taken to the High Court but it was dismissed.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants took us through the different orders passed from time to time and vehemently contended that on the date on which the evidence was closed there was no valid order directing the appellants to produce their evidence. It was pointed out that on 20th of June, 1993, the previous date of hearing, the learned District Judge was not holding Court and the case was adjourned by the Reader of the Court for recording of evidence as already ordered. The learned counsel referred us to para. 4 of the order under appeal in which the High Court has expressed the view that orders passed by the Reader of the Court have no legal significance. It was contended that in light of this rule the learned District Judge should have himself fixed another date for production of evidence and it is only then that an adverse order, in case of default, could be,passed by the trial Court.

3. Mr. Nazir Ahmad Qadri controverted the argument and also pointed out that revision petition before the High Court was time‑barred. The order challenged before the High Court was passed on 27th of July, 1993 while the revision petition was filed on 14th of May, 1995. Mr. Nazir Ahmad Qadri pointed out that rule 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984 lays down that a revision petition shall be filed within ninety days. The learned Advocate‑General, Raja Shiraz Kayani, stepped in to submit that the order of the High Court did not merit interference.

4. To meet the point of limitation Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan submitted that apart from revisional power conferred on the High Court 'by section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure ample powers are vested in the High Court to pass an appropriate order in exercise of powers of superintendence and control vested in the High Court by section 46 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act 1974 as well as section 35 of the Courts and Laws Code 1949. The learned counsel relied on a judgment of this Court reported as Muhammad Aslam Khan v. Mst. Akbar Jan and others (1991 CLC 3607). This judgment lends support to the contention of the learned counsel but does not deal with the question of limitation.'

5. The facts of the case show that the revision petition filed by the appellants in the High Court was hopelessly time‑barred and this ground alone was sufficient for its dismissal. The power to correct an illegality could still be exercised by the High Court under the two provisions of law which have been A referred to above. However, the fact that the appellants slept over the matter for almost two years in approaching the High Court disentitles them from getting any relief in the matter. The facts of the case do not show that there has been gross miscarriage of justice so that the Court may feel inclined to ignore the time spent in moving the High Court. A number of opportunities were given to the appellants to produce evidence but they failed to take advantage of the accommodating attitude of the trial Court. 1n the judgment of this Court in Mirza Lal Hussain v. Custodian of Evacuee Property (1992 SCR 214), which has been cited by Mr. Nazir Hussain Qadri, we have held that even a void order cannot be set aside if it has not been challenged within reasonable time. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal and order its dismissal. However. we leave the parties to bear their respective costs in the Court. H.B.T./190/SC AJ&K Appeal dismissed.