1. ' EHSANULLAH QURESHI, J.--- The above titled appeal has been preferred by the appellants, challenging the impugned order dated: 16-9-2006 and 2-11-2006 passed by the Chief Court Gilgit.
2. ' At the very outset the learned counsel for respondent raised preliminary objections as to maintainability of the appeal. Firstly, that the impugned order dated 16-9-2006 from which the appellants were in fact aggrieved had never been challenged. The appellants have come to this Court after the report of the Commission has been furnished on 2-11-2006 while appeal in hand has been moved in this Court on 11-12-2006 which on the face of it, is hopelessly time barred under the law, delay of each day has to be explained by the party.
3. ' The learned counsel for the appellants in rebuttal submitted that void order is always a void order which is to be ignored, the appeal is well within time. Secondly substantiating his arguments as to limitation, he added that by the appointment of second Commission reports of two commissioners are before the Court, so it is a moot point that which Commission report has to be taken into consideration: According to him the first commissioner was appointed with the consent of both parties and statement to this effect was also recorded by the Court, so such report is binding on both the parties which as a matter of fact, is a verdict by the arbitrator and it is to be treated as final and cannot be disputed by any of the party. He placed his reliance on 1981 CLC page 364 (Lahore), YLR 1999 page 1215, SCMR 2003 page 1911. Winding up the learned counsel for the appellants lastly advanced that proper legal exercise has not been carried out by the learned Chief Court, so the question of limitation does not arise.
4. ' The learned counsel for the defendants responding to the above, submitted that the second order of appointment of Commission by the Chief Court, is also passed on the request of the parties and a commissioner was appointed with the consent of the parties, still, in case the appellants had reservation on the appointment of second Commission dated 16-9-2006, the appellants could challenge the order, dated 16-9-2006 within the prescribed time, which they failed. But after dated 2-11-2006 when the order of the Chief Court was acted upon and report by Commissioner was submitted, filing appeal was riot a legal exercise, now the matter is pending before the Chief Court, the impugned order has been matured, it is on the final stage, as much no appeal or appeal lies, against the preliminary or interrogatory order.
5. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record as well. The perusal of the record reveals that the parties themselves voluntarily consented on the name of the Commission, firstly before the subordinate Court and secondly before the Chief Court.
6. ' It is thus worth consideration, forgetting that the order, dated 16-9-2006 was announced on the joint request of the parties and Mr. Khadim Hussain Advocate was appointed as Commissioner with the consent of both the parties, the question before us that why the appellants kepr-mum till the report in pursuance to order dated 16-9-2006 was prepared and submitted before the Chief Court, the so-more he had paid the Commission fee as per direction of the Court, it means he had accepted the position.
7. ' It is a settled law that no preliminary order or branch order pending proceedings could be challenged unless it affects the case materially or otherwise amounts to finality or jolting the merit of the case to a great extent or due to interlocutory order the suit/appeal may become infractions.
8. The Court therefore shall be conscious enough and always avoid to interfere in the like cases, so that the purpose of litigation may not frustrate.
9. ' We, in the wake of above, abstain to interfere, let the Chief Court decide the case on merit after providing complete opportunity to both the parties on the question of law as well as on facts.
10. ' Appeal as such dismissed, no order as to cost, file be consigned to record.