1. By this Order I intend to dispose of the above two applications as they contain the same prayer as to the recalling the order dated 9-8-1987 passed by me. It seems that C.M.A. No. 462/87 had come up for hearing before me on 9-8-1987, which application was filed by the respondent for the withdrawal of the amount deposited during the pendency of the above revision application. The learned counsel for the applicant was on general adjournment and this fact was brought to my notice but I did not adjourn the case on the ground that since the A case of 1980, the general adjournment did not cover any case prior to the year 1982 and thus I granted the above application pf the respondent.
2. It seems that the application was of 1987, which was fixed for hearing and there was no case of 1980 pending then. Since the Advocate for the applicant was granted general adjournment he was not supposed to be present on the date of hearing nor his client. There seems to be error apparent on the face of the order.
3. I would, therefore, allow the above application and recall my order dated IC 9-8-1987 and would fix the C.M.A. No. 402 of 1987 for hearing on 4-9-1987.
4. Admittedly the intervenor was not a party to the suit nor in the appeal or in the above revision application. The above application for becoming a party to the above revision application which stands already disposed of misconceived. However, it was urged by Mr. Muhammad Asar Hussain that the application for the withdrawal of the amount is a new proceeding and. Therefore, the intervenor is entitled to come forward and to make the above application.
5. The above contention is devoid of any force. The amount was deposited in the above revision application and the application for withdrawal of the above J rent cannot be said to be a new proceeding.