2018 PLP 286 (YLRN)

MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.

Appellant has assailed order dated 30.05.2005 of District Judge, Skardu, whereby, said learned court has passed the following:

"In the light of the above detailed discussion, I accept this revision petition, set aside the judgment dated 29.8.1998, passed by my learned pre-decessor in CFA.No.27/96 and accept the appeal/Revision. I set aside the judgment/order dated 14.5.1996 passed by the Civil Judge 1st Class, Skardu, in petition No. C.Misc.3/91 and accept the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. and suede the judgment/decree dated 13.3.1989 passed by the Civil Judge 1st Class, Skardu in Civil Suit No.109/85 and remand the case back to the court of Civil Judge 1st Class, Skardu for trial on merits by impleading Raja Mohammad Ali Shah petitioner as defendant. Parties to bear their own costs. File of this court be consigned to record after completion. Announced. 30-5-2005. Sd/- District Judge Skardu Baltistan

2. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the material available on file. In view of very peculiar circumstances of the case, I have thoughtfully considered arguments advanced by the parties. The case in hand is very important. For ready reference, I have reproduced impugned order herein above. In my opinion, the impugned order attained very importance, as through the said order, learned trial court has set aside the following orders:--

1. Order dated 29-08-98 in CFA No.27/96 of the predecessor of the judge, who passed impugned order.

2. Accepted the appeal, CFA No.27/96.

3. Set aside judgment/order dated 14-05-96 passed by the then Civil Judge Skardu in Civil Misc. No.03/91.

4. Accepted petition under section 12(2), C.P.C. and set aside judgment/decree dated 13-03-89 passed by the then Civil Judge Skardu in Civil Suit No.109/85.

5. Remanded the case back to Civil Judge First Class Skardu for trial on merits by impleading Raja Mohammad Ali Shah, petitioner, as defendant.

3. From record, it is evident that the Chairman Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan passed order dated 02-10-93 in CSA No.35/98. The said CSA No.35/98 admittedly pertained to subject matter of the case in which learned District Judge Skardu passed above impugned order. From plain perusal of impugned order, it is evident that petitioner attempted to be impleaded to the main suit but failed. So, the question arises that, whether he could file a review petition on which learned District Judge passed impugned order or could approach the then superior courts of Gilgit-Baltistan? So, the very important aspect of the case is that, whether learned District Judge Skardu could pass any order contrary or conflicting the above referred order of the then Chairman Chief Court? The second very important question worth determination is that, whether learned District Judge Skardu had powers to set aside orders of his own predecessor? In my opinion, the learned District Judge Skardu could set aside orders of his predecessor in very specific limited circumstances. In the case in hand, I have noted that through impugned order, the learned District Judge Skardu has set aside a number of orders of his predecessor as well as of the Civil Judge Skardu. Obviously, some orders that the learned District Judge Skardu has set aside were subject to appeal or revision or review and for all these kinds of remedies, there are certain and specific limitations provided in different laws of the land and any of the parties felt aggrieved from such orders could avail any of such remedies within certain limited time. While passing the impugned order, learned first appellate court did not care for such limitations and passed the impugned order as a result of very erroneous approach regarding such limitations. As has been remarked above that the learned District Judge Skardu has passed about 5 orders in a row and that also in connection with hearing of a single petition. It is evident from plain perusal of impugned order that the learned District Judge Skardu set aside order dated 13-03-89, passed by Civil Judge First Class, Skardu, in Civil Suit No.109/85, through impugned order passed on 30-05-2005. So, the prayer part of the petition attained very importance. I have gone through the said prayer part which is very confusing one. For ready reference, I reproduce the same hereunder:- Review application under Order XLVII, Rule 1 read with section 114 of C.P.C. against the order dated 29.8.1998 passed by this court in CFA No.28/96 whereby the appeal/revision application was dismissed and maintained the judgment and decree dated 14.5.1996 Civil Misc. 3/91. For setting aside the same and also to set aside the decree/ judgment dated 13.9.89 passed by the Civil Judge Skardu in Suit No.109/85 by accepting the application under section 12(2), C.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for respondent failed to satisfy the court that the learned District Judge Skardu had any power to pass all the above referred orders. In my opinion, the order dated 02-10-93, passed by the then Chairman Chief Court Gilgit, is in field and the same renders the impugned order a nullity. Moreover, the prayer of the petition is patently confused one and shows incompetency of the said petition. I, therefore, convert this petition into writ petition, and in exercise of my supervisory powers set the things correct. Impugned order set aside. Petition accepted throughout. This file be consigned to record. ZC/44/GB Petition accepted.