AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. - Through this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the revisional Court's order dated 21.03.2012, whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 25.01,2010 passed by the Trial Court, whereby suit for pre-emption filed by petitioner- plaintiff, after closing his evidence U/O. XVII, Rule 3 of C.P.C., was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that when evidence of plaintiff was closed on 25.01.2010, the other suit for pre-emption filed by the plaintiff against the defendant-respondent was fixed for hearing of arguments on the application U/O. VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. Therefore, this suit should not have been dismissed after closing the evidence.
3. I have heard the argument and perused the record.
4. This argument of learned counsel has no weight, as the proceedings in this suit were being recorded independently and before closing the evidence, a warning was issued to the plaintiff for absolutely last opportunity in order to produce evidence but he failed. Learned Trial Court has rightly closed the evidence and dismissed the suit. Furthermore, this order, judgment and decree was appealable but without filing any appeal a revision was filed, that too after about three months. Learned revisional Court has observed that revision is not competent, as it was filed after the prescribed period of limitation provided for appeal, therefore, it cannot be converted into appeal and dismissed the revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to show any jurisdictional defect in the impugned order/judgment & decrees passed by the Courts below. For invoking the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, petitioner is bound to show jurisdictional defect in the orders passed by the Courts below but the petitioner has not been able to point out any flaw therein. Resultantly, this writ petition having no substance is dismissed in limine.