1. ' MUZAFFAR ALI, J.--- The appeal was fixed today for admission. I heard the learned counsel for the appellants in preliminaries. The respondents along with their counsel are also in attendance at their own instance and resisted the admission of the appeal and requested its dismissal in limine.
2. ' The brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the present appellants moved an application under Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C. Before the learned trial Court, which was allowed on 6-7-2004 and feeling aggrieved of the said order, the present respondents assailed the order, dated 6-7-2004 passed by the learned trial Judge in appeal before the learned District Judge, Skardu and in the said appeal the learned counsel for the present appellants stated at bar, that "he has no objection if the learned First Appellate Court accepts the appeal and the impugned order is set aside", resultantly the appeal was accepted and the order dated 6-7-2004 passed by the learned trial Court was set aside by the 1st Appellate Court vide its order dated 11-3-2005 and the case was remanded back to the trial Court for disposal on merits. On 23-4-2005 when the suit was fixed for further proceedings in the trial Court, the learned counsel for the present appellants requested the learned trial Court to rehear the application under Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C. The request was disagreed by the learned trial Court vide its order, dated 23-4-2005 and same was challenged in 1st appeal before learned District Judge, Skardu. The appeal was entrusted to the learned Additional District Judge, Skardu and the learned Additional District Judge after hearing the parties, dismissed the same on 30-8- 2005. Hence this second appeal before this Court.
3. ' I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties.
4. ' The learned counsel for the appellants admitted the above facts, but urged that while allowing the application under Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C., the learned trial Court had inserted the wrong mutation numbers in the order, dated 6-7-2004, which were not mentioned in the said application, therefore, he stated at bar before the learned District Judge that "he has no objection if the impugned order is set aside by accepting the appeal". He further urged that since the trial Court has omitted to insert the mutation numbers in the order dated 6-7-2004, as such the appellants cannot be allowed to suffer for any act of the Court.
5. The point raised by learned counsel for the appellants do not attract my judicial mind for the reasons that if there was a clerical mistake apparent in the order, dated 6-7-2004, the same could be cured under section 152, C.P.C. And the learned counsel for the appellants instead of adopting the proper course of law to make the clerical error in the said order to be cured, fired at the same and after its shot dead, he agitated the application which was disposed of, without caring the principle of law that "no one can be vexed twice for the cause which has been disposed of and has got finality".
6. ' The conclusion of the above discussion is that the appeal is dismissed in limine.