' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 calls in question the order dated 8-9-1987, passed by the Collector, Sialkot, whereby he dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 15-12-1986, passed by the Chairman, Arbitration Council, Union Council Kot Karam Bakhsh, Tehsil Daska, whereby he issued maintenance certificate in favour of Mst. Aisha Bibi respondent No,4 herein directing the petitioner herein to pay her maintenance for the past two years at the rate of Rs,1,000 per month and also for three months Idat period upto 20-2-1987.
2. The facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that the parties appeared before the Chairman, Arbitration Council respondent No,2 herein on 15-12-1986 and recorded their statements. The relevant portion of the statement of Ishtiaq Ahmad, petitioner herein reads as under:- {{URDU TEXT}}
3. Mst. Aisha Bibi respondent No,4 herein, inter alia stated before the Chairman that the petitioner earns about Rs,15,000/16,000 per month but never paid any money to her. She also appointed Nasir Ahmad s/o Ghulam Rasool as her arbitrator. The statement of Nasir Ahmad was also recorded in support of respondent N6.4 on the said date. Consequently, respondent No,2 after appreciating the evidence on record accepted the maintenance application. The revision petition filed by the petitioner on 28-4-1987 was dismissed being time barred. The revisional authority refused to condone the delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Chairman failed to constitute the Arbitration Council under section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, neither any proceedings were conducted in connection thereto and, therefore, the order passed by the Council was a nullity. The contention is devoid of any force. The petitioner himself appeared before the Chairman, Arbitration Council and made a statement, that he did not want to nominate his representative, therefore, he is precluded by his conduct to raise this question for the first time in writ jurisdiction, particularly, when this question was not raised even before the Collector, in the grounds of revision.
5. It is next contended that the revision petition was not barred by time inasmuch as one of the members of the Arbitration Council signed the impugned order on 20-2-1987. That may be so, the revision petition was filed on 28-4-1987 and even if the period is computed with effect from 20-2- 1987 still it was time-barred. The District Collector in the exercise of his discretion refused to condone the delay. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the discretion exercised by him was arbitrary or fanciful.
6. In view of the above, I find no force in the writ petition which- is hereby dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.