MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.--- This civil revision is directed against the dismissal of appeal through order, dated 20-2-2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore whereby refusing condonation of delay of over two years, the learned first appellate Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay as well as the appeal.
2. The appeal was filed by the present petitioners against order, dated 3-6-2000 of the learned trial Judge closing the right of the petitioners to file the written statement as the petitioners despite repeated opportunities had failed to present their defence through filing of written statement.
3. Notably the learned trial Judge did not pronounce any judgment in terms of rule 10 of Order VIII, C.P.C. But passed an order of adjournment of the suit after closing petitioners' right to file the.
Written statement. The appeal was filed against the above said order, dated 3-6-2000 under the provisions of rule 1 of Order XLIII, C.P.C. By the petitioners. As recorded above, the appeal was dismissed being barred by time and' the learned first appellate Court refused to exercise its discretion to condone the delay in favour of the petitioners in view of their defaulting conduct and absence of proof of collusion and connivance of their officer appearing in the Court and the respondent. The present civil revision has thus, been filed against order, dated 20-2-2003 of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore dismissing appeal of the petitioners.
4. Confronted with the provisions of rule 1 of Order XLIII, C.P.C. Regarding the maintainability of the appeal against order, dated 3-6-2000, the learned counsel for the petitioners admitted that no judgment was pronounced by the learned trial Judge under rule, 10 of Order VIII, C.P.C. And instead the suit was adjourned.
5. The provisions of rule 1(b) of Order XLIII, C.P.C. Provide that an appeal lies only against "an order under rule 10 of Order VIII, C.P.C. Pronouncing judgment against a party". In absence of a judgment against the petitioners, their appeal against order, dated 3-6-2000 was obviously incompetent.
The learned Additional District Judge also proceeded with the matter as if the appeal was competent but dismissed the same being barred by time.
6. Be that as it may, the appeal as filed by the petitioners was obviously not allowed by the law wherefor even it the appeal coma nave been treated as a civil revision, the petitioners would be barred to file a second civil revision before this Court.
7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court for conversion. Of this civil revision into a constitutional petition. In view of the fact that the petitioners filed an incompetent appeal and then a civil revision, the circumstances of the case do not justify conversion of the present civil revision into a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The present civil revision admittedly arises out of an incompetent appeal filed by the petitioners. This civil revision is thus, dismissed.