' This is a revision, application under section 115, C.P.C. The facts giving rise to this revision, briefly stated, are that the applicant filed a suit against the respondents in the Court of Civil Judge First Class, Karachi for the recovery of Rs.5,523/23 being suit No.1679 of 1968. The respondents contested the suit and on 25-11-1968 filed an application under Order XI, rule 12, C.P.C. for discovery on oath of documents by the applicant. This application was granted by the learned Civil Judge on the same day and the applicant was directed to file the affidavits of documents by the next date of hearing.
The applicant failed to comply with the said order although various opportunities were given to it and consequently on 28-7-1969 the suit was dismissed with costs. Being aggrieved with the said order the applicant filed an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 226 of 1969 in the District Court which was heard by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi on 9-11-1970 in the absence of the counsel, for respondent No.1. The counsel,however, appeared late and made an application for allowing him to argue the matter. This application was refused then and there and the appeal was allowed on the same day and the suit was remanded to the trial Court for proceeding with it on merits.
Respondent No.1 challenged the said judgment and order passed on 9-11-1970 in this Court in Civil Revision Application No.49/1971. The Revision Application was accepted ex parte on 25-10-1971 by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The order reads as under:- "On the last date of hearing dated 4-10-1971, counsel for the respondent No.1 remained absent. His application for adjournment was rejected by me, and a cost of Rs.100 was awarded against him in favour of counsel for the applicant and respondent No.2.
' Today both the counsel for respondents are absent, and the cost of Rs.100 has not been paid by the counsel for the respondent No.1 as ordered by me. No application for adjournment has been moved. From the history of the case it appears that counsel for respondent No. 1 is not interested in prosecution of the case as observed earlier. I have no alternative but to accept the prayer of the applicant. The application is therefore, granted ex parte, and hereby set aside the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Karachi, dated 9-11-1970. The Revision Application is accepted with costs."
' An application for setting aside the said order was moved by the applicant herein but the same was dismissed by this Court.
2. Respondent No.1 moved an application on 20-1-1972 in the Court of Civil Judge First Class, Karachi praying for the dismissal of the suit as per orders of the High Court. This application was granted by the learned Civil Judge by his order dated 9-2-1972. The applicant then made an application under section 151, C.P.C. before the learned Civil Judge for setting aside the order dated 9-2-1972 which was dismissed by him vide his order dated 22-5-1974. The applicant, then, preferred an appeal against the said order being Civil Misc. Appeal No.130/1974 which was also dismissed by the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge on 5-9-1975. The applicant has now come in this revision.
3. Mr.Inamul Haq, learned counsel for the applicant has urged that no notice of the application for dismissal of _ the suit by order dated 9-2-1972 was given by the learned Civil Judge. As such the learned Civil Judge has committed an illegality inasmuch as the order has been passed without giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard. Learned counsel further urged that the order dated 25-10-1971 passed by this Court in Revision Application No.49/1971 was an order accepting the revision only in respect of an order passed by the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge on application of respondent No.1 moved by his Advocate for allowing him to argue the matter.
4. The question is of the interpretation of the order dated 25-10-1971 passed by this Court which has been reproduced above. While reading the order there is inescapable conclusion that the learned Single Judge has accepted the Revision Application as a whole and the impugned order/judgment was set aside. The contention of the learned counsel that there is only a mention of the setting aside of the order which might only refer to the order passed on the application of the counsel for the respondent for allowing him to argue the matter, has no force as the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge has also been described by him as "order". Learned counsel, however, further contended that there could not be revision against an order passed in Regular Civil Appeal. This contention has no force as the High Court could pass the order treating the revision as IInd Appeal.
5. The contention as to the absence of notice has also no force as there was no need for making any application by respondent No.1 or giving any notice thereof to the applicant. On the acceptance of the revision application by this Court the order dated 28-7-1969 dismissing the suit held the field and, therefore, there was no necessity of passing any fresh order for dismissal of the suit.
6. For the reasons discussed above, I find no substance in this Revision Application which is accordingly dismissed but, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.