' IKRAMULLAH KHAN, J.---This is a constitutional petition, filed by the petitioner under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, for redressal of his grievance, whereof, the respondent No, 51, through its impugned judgment dated 24-6-2008, accepted the final report in the matter of partition with regard to the joint property, owned by petitioner along with other co- owners. The grievance of the petitioner is that the partition proceeding was under consideration before (The District Revenue Officer), Charsadda, (respondent No, 51), whereas, an Ajeer was appointed for the partition of the land, whereof, he submitted its final report back to the Revenue Official (respondent No, 51), which was acknowledged thereof by respondent No, 51 on 23-6-2008, the learned Revenue Official, adjourned the matter in hand for 24-7-2008, on the date fixed thereof by respondent No, 51, when the private respondents appeared there before the respondent 51, came to know, that the matter has already been decided on 24-6-2068 and the partition proceeding was accordingly concluded. They filed a review petition, which was allowed and the order dated 24-6-2008, was set aside. The petitioner challenged the said review order up to the forum of SMBR but in vain, hence this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for petitioner contended that the impugned judgment, is illegal, abuse of process of Courts, being based on incorrect construction of law, for the sole reason that the order dated 9-7-2008, passed by the Revenue Officer, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, could not be sustained, but the learned Member Board, had not checked the blatant illegality caused by the Revenue Official, in passing an absolutely illegal order, which I had caused gross miscarriage of justice, could not be retained in field.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the matter was pending before the Revenue Court on 23-6-2008, between the parties, which was adjourned to 24-7-2008, but with manipulation of record, the said date was altered, fabricated to 24-6-2008 and an ex parte order was passed by respondent No,51 in absence of the respondents and thereafter when, the matter was brought in the notice of the respondent No, 51, by filing a review petition, it was set aside, and the parties were relegated to the previous position as it was prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 24-6-2008, supported the impugned judgment on the ground, that petitioner had not been prejudiced thereof from the impugned order, being based on correct appraisal and construction of law.
4. The available record, annexed hereto, by the petitioner with its memorandum of the writ petition itself reveals, that the order sheet dated 23-6-2008 is manipulated and overwriting is seen thereon is unrebuttable.
5. Any order, passed on the back of a party, depriving a party of its legal right of audience, is against natural justice, could not be legalized on any premises.
6. No doubt the impugned review order was also passed, without notice to the petitioner, but even so, that very illegality or irregularity could not be accepted is a ground to retain an order which was itself void ab initio.
7. The impugned order, passed by SMBR, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, whereby an illegal order was set aside and parties were relegated to their respective position as it was before the, date 24-6-2008, could not be challenged through constitutional petition, being in nature of interim order and no prejudice had been caused to the petitioner. It is the legal right of every party litigating against each other to be heard, before any adverse order has to be passed against them, which may deprive such party thereof their valuable right in immovable property. In this regard reliance be placed on case of "Muhammad Ilyas Khan v. Muhammad and others (1986 SCM R 251).
8. No jurisdictional infirmity could be pointed out there in the impugned orders passed by the official respondents in exercise of their respective jurisdiction conferred on them by the provisions of Land Revenue Act, 1967.
9. Keeping in view the reasons given herein above, the instant writ petition is devoid of any merit, accordingly dismissed.