MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-This matter has come up before this Court for the second time. An earlier petition (CPSLA No. 141-R of 1979 involving the same, subject-matter was converted into appeal and the case was remanded to the Service Tribunal for consideration ---on merits after affording her an opportunity to defend her interest" The matter having again been decided against her, the petitioner leas sought leave to appeal for the second time. The earlier remand order was passed by this Court on the following representation Made on her side that "she had been condemned unheard inasmuch as the notice sent to her by the Tribunal had been addressed on a wrong address and consequently when the same was re-- directed to her at proper address the appeal had already been disposed of". In this view of the matter she appeared before the Tribunal and filed an application for setting aside the order against her but the Tribunal rejecter: her application holding that "they were incompetent to do so as they had no jurisdiction to review their order.
2. The Tribunal when re-deciding the matter has noted with sotue amount of regret, that facts were not correctly represented before the Supreme Court. After noting that "the petitioner was not attending the Tribunal during so many regular hearings", it made observations relevant in this behalf, as follows :- "During the last hearing on 6-1-1979 when the arguments of the appellant as well as those of the respondents were concluded and the Tribunal was rising for the day, Mrs. Asiya Mahmood (the petitioner herein) made an appearance in the Court. She wanted to plead her case against the arguments recorded in respect of the appellant and other respondents. However, she had not by then engaged any counsel or at least her counsel was not available in 'the Court at the moment.
She offered willingly to give her arguments in writing to defend her interest in the case which should be considered by the Tribunal before deciding the appeal filed by Miss Aziz Begum. She was allowed to file written arguments which she did within a few :lays of the last hearing. These arguments were in addition to the comments filed by her as respondent in the normal course against the points raised by Miss Aziz Begum. The written arguments filed by her were duly taken into consideration before delivering the judgment on the appeal."
Proceeding further the Tribunal remarked that "it was not correct on the part of the present petitioner to depose before the honourable Supreme Court that "she had been condemned unheard without having been afforded an opportunity to defend her interest. This was a misstatement of facts. However, as the honourable Supreme Court .Has remanded the case for re-hearing, we have heard the learned counsel for Mrs. Asiya Mahmood in detail and have again afforded her full opportunity to defend her interest through her counsel or by pleading her case herself."
3. The Tribunal then examined the case and once again decided it against the petitioner. It may be mentioned here that on merits the questions involved in the present matter, would in a way be deemed to have been decided and settled by the Supreme Court on 3-4-1980, when the other petitions seeking leave to appeal from tae previous judgment of the Tribunal were dismissed on merits, and, the petitioner's case was remanded solely on the ground of lack of opportunity of hearing.
4. We called upon the learned counsel to satisfy us why the petitioner should not be denied the right of hearing in this matter by this Court when she obtained a relief on a previous occasion by not representing the facts regarding opportunity of hearing, in a correct perspective. He has failed to satisfy us in this behalf.
5. We, after questioning the petitioner and her husband, who it a has been assisting her in the conduct of her case and after perusal of the affidavit submitted before the Tribunal in a previous case by her which co trained her contentions on merits, feel satisfied that the factual aspect of the observations made by the Tribunal regarding conduct of the petitioner, correct. If she would have informed (on the previous hearing) that she submitted an affidavit containing her plea before the Tribunal as noted earlierthe results might have been different and her petition for leave to appeal might not have been converted into an appeal and the case might not have bee remanded. The conduct of the petitioner in this behalf amounts to abuse o process of this Court. She has, therefore, disentitled herself to any relief I these proceedings and for the same reasons, we have denied her the hear in on merits. This petition accordingly is dismissed.