MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, CJ.---- The petitioner through the instant Civil Revision Petition called in question the validity of judgment/order dated 01-10-2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit, whereby the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit was pleased to dismiss the petition filed by the present petitioner under section 114 read with section 151, C.P.C., for review of order dated 14-11-2016 passed by the learned District Judge Gilgit in Civil Miscellaneous No.121/2016.
2. Precisely stating facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed a civil suit before learned trial Court and the learned trial Court after completion of proceedings and hearing of parties decree d the suit of the petitioner vide Judgment/decree dated 11-8-2014. Feelin g aggrieved from the judgment/decree dated 11-8-2014 the respondents Nos. 1 to 12 have preferred an appeal bearing CFA No.79/ 2014 before the learned District Judge Gilgit and learned District Judge Gilgit on 18-6-2015 dismissed the civil first appeal of present respondents Nos. 1 to 12 for non-prosecution. Respondents Nos. 1 to 12 have filed a Civil Miscellaneous Application bearing No. 111/ 2015 for restoration of main appeal before the learned District Judge Gilgit and responde nts remained absent during the proceedings in the restoration petition and the learned District Judge has dismissed the same for non-prosecution on 12-12-2015. Later on respondents Nos.1 to 12 have preferred another application under Order XLI, Rule 19 for restoration/re-admission of CFA No.79/2014. The learned District Judge allowed the same and restored the civil first appeal bearing No.79/2014 vide order dated 14-1 1-2016.
Being dis-satisfied with the Judgment/ order dated 14-11-2016 of the learned District Judge Gilgit, the present petitioner had filed a review petition before the learned Additional District Judge , Gilgit. The learned Additional District Judge, Gilgit after hearing the parties, dismissed the same as time barred, vide judgment/ order dated 01- 10-2020, hence, the petitioner has filed the instant petition before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgment/ order dated 01-10-2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit is contrary to law and facts of the case, hence, the impugned judgment/order is not maintainable in the eye of law and liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit has passed the impugned judgment/ order in hasty manner , therefore, the judgment/ order is liable to be set aside. He further argued that respondents have concealed the facts of the case as their earlier applications filed for restoration of main appeal have been dismissed due to non-prosecution, hence, the respondents have not approached the Court with clean hands, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. He further argued that the order dated 14-11-2016 has been passed on the basis of no objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner but the petitioner has never engaged him as her counsel, therefore, the act of the learned counsel is not binding upon the petitioner . Lastly the learned counsel submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to exercise his jurisdiction vested in it and exercised jurisdiction not so vested, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petition in hand may kindly be allowed to meet the ends of justice.
4. Conversely , the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 12 have strongly defended the judgment / order of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge Gilgit by contending that petitione r has appointed counsel for her legal assistance and to defend her case and under law the learned counsel have power to get record any statement before the Court on behalf of the client. He further submitted that the acts of the counsel have been considered on behalf of the client. He further submitted that the learned District Judge Gilgit has passed the order on the basis of no objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner . He further submitted that the review petition of the petitioner , filed before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge Gilgit is clearly time barred, hence, the instant petition is not Maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Parties and have also perused the record available on file.
6. From perusal of record and Judgment/ order dated 14-11-2016 passed by the learned District Judge Gilgit that the learned counsel for the present petitioner was present on 14-11-2016 before the learned District Judge Gilgit and on his statement at bar regarding no objection in acceptance of the petition, the learned District Judge Gilgit has allowed the petition bearing No. C.Misc.121/2016 and restored the main Civil appeal bearing No.79/2014 against Rs.2,000/- cost. The petitioner has preferred the review petition before the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit after lapse of almost three years and ten months despite having the knowledge of the judgment/order passed by the learned District Judge Gilgit as the judgment/order has been passed in presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner and limitation to file a review petition is provided only 90 days under Article 173 of Limitation Act, 1908. Hence, the review petition of the petitioner filed before the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit is hopelessly time barred. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment/order and also could not raise any point of law which may persuade this court to upset the findings of the learned Addl. District Judge Gilgit. The learned Additional District Judge Gilgit has rightly appreciated the law and materials available on file, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court.
7. The nutshell of the above discussion is that, the instant petition has no merit, hence, dismissed by upholding the judgment/ order of the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit. File after due completion be consigned to record.