' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 calls in question the revisional order of the Collector, Gujranwala dated 2nd of February, 1988, whereby he set aside the order of the Arbitration Council dated 5th of May, 1987 by virtue of which the petitioner had been awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs,1,000 per month with effect from May, 1985 on an application filed by her under section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961.
2. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Rafique Chohan, Advocate for the petitioner. No one has entered appearance for the respondents.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that against the order of the Arbitration Council dated 5th of May, 1987, respondent No,1 could have filed a revision within a period of thirty days as prescribed by Rule 16 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 but the revision petition in the present case was instituted by the said respondent on 9th of July, 1987 and was as such barred by time.
4. The learned counsel has further contended that the objection as to limitation was specifically raised before the Collector but he gave no decision thereon and instead proceeded to accept the revision petition, on the strength of the authority of the Supreme Court reported as Ahsan Ali and others v. District Judge and others PLD 1969 SC 167. It is argued that without deciding the question of limitation and condoning the delay, the revision could not have been accepted by the Collector.
5. The contentions raised by the learned counsel are well-founded and are supported by the authority relied upon by him. The order of the Arbitration Council which was challenged in revision was passed on 5th of May, 1987 while the revision petition was instituted on 9th July, 1987 much after the expiry of period of limitation. From perusal of the order of the Collector it is apparent that an objection was raised by the petitioner that the revision petition was barred by time at about one month. However, unfortunately without adverting to this aspect of the matter the Collector accepted the revision. The order passed by him thus is not sustainable.
' In view of what has been stated above this petition is accepted and the impugned order of the Collector is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. There shall be no order as to costs.