1. SARDAR ABDUL HAMEED KHAN, J.--- This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner wherein the impugned order of the District Judge Hajera dated 30-7-2011 has been assailed whereby the revision petition against the interim order of Civil Judge Hajera dated 29-3-2011 was rejected by learned Additional District Judge Hajera.
2. The distinct facts of the case are that petitioner brought a suit for pre-emption before the learned Civil Judge Hajera. In the first round of litigation suit was dismissed for want of proof on 25-2-2010.
3. The appeal against this judgment and decree filed by the petitioner was acceptedbyAdditionalDistrictJudgeHajeravideitsorderdated 29-1-2011. The appeal was accepted and the case was remanded back to Civil Judge Hajera to decide the case afresh by passing resolution on each issue. The case is at the stage of final arguments. The petitioner moved an application before the Civil Judge for re-arranging some issues and also to frame some additional issues. The application was rejected by Civil Judge Hajera dated 29-3-2011. The petitioner feeling aggrieved filed revision petition before the Additional District Judge Hajera who alsoconcurredwiththelearnedCivilJudgeHajera,hencethis petition.
4. Arguments heard.
5. The learned counsel Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan argued at length and the reasons for filing writ petition with the background and facts of the case it was argued by the learned counsel that though suit was filed after the period of limitation but suit was within time from the date of knowledge/possession of the suit-land.
6. The learned counsel reiterated facts and grounds narrated in the application for re-arranging issues as well as averments made in the writ petition and contended that the orders of the learned District Judge as well as the trial Court are illegal, which have been passed without any lawful authority and prayed writ of certiorari for setting aside both the orders of the courts below and re- arranging and reframing of issues as prayed for.
7. On the other hand Muhammad Sabir Kashmiri the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 reiterated arguments on behalf of the petitioner and contended that application before the trial Court was a clever device of petitioner to prolong the case. Revision petition as well as the instant writ petition are the chains of this device to prolong the case. The learned counsel further contended that findings of rejection of application for re-arranging and re-framing of additional issues and revision petition are concurrently passed by both the courts below, hence cannot be disturbed in writ jurisdiction and prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. Facts of the case need not to be narrated or reiterated. It is pertinent to note that the writ petition is not supported by any affidavit as required under Rule 32(2) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984. The reason is that this court has to decide these petitions on the basis of evidence in the shape of affidavits etc., it will be not out of place to mention that the answering respondent also not filed any affidavit with the written statement, even on merits the petition is not worth consideration because it is the prerogative of the trial Court to re-arrange issues even at the time of final order. Further more this case is on the final stage of arguments before the trial Court in second round of litigation. In the trial Court and first appellate court the petitioner while preferred appeal and argued the case this version was not a part of appeal or arguments. A minute scrutiny of both the orders of the courts below leaves no room for interference, which are concurrently passed in a lawful manner. As said earlier that without an affidavit the petition is incompetent and even on merit the petition is without any substance. The petitioner has not succeeded to make out a case for writ of certiorari, hence petition merits dismissal.
9. For the reasons stated above the writ petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.