' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 assails the order dated 3rd June, 1990 passed by the Collector/Deputy Commissioner Sargodha whereby he accepted a revision filed by respondent No,1 against the order of the Arbitration Council Ludewala Tehsil and District Sargodha.
2. Mst. Parveen Akhtar, petitioner was married to Ghulam Akbar respondent No,1 on 30th July, 1974.
On 28th February, 1989 she filed an application under Section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs,2,000 per month. Respondent No,1 failed to appear and contest the proceedings with the result that he was proceeded against ex parte. On 17th July, 1989 the Arbitration Council directed him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs,1,000 per month to respondent No,1 w,e,f. Ist of July, 1986. It appears that he challenged this order of Arbitration Council by filing a revision which was however dismissed by the Collector on 18th December, 1989 on the ground that the copy of the order impugned had not been filed alongwith it.
The second petition for revision was filed on 20th December, 1989 before the Collector which was accepted by him on 3rd of June, 1990 on the finding that the Chairman, Arbitration Council, Ludewala had no territorial jurisdiction in the matter. This order of the Collector has been assailed by the petitioner in this petition.
3. Mr. S.M. Rashid, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents.
' Mr. S.M. Rashid, Advocate, contends that as the earlier revision petition filed by respondent No,1 had been dismissed by the Collector on 18th December, 1989, the second petition for revision by respondent No,1 was barred by the principle of res judicata. This contention of the learned counsel is wholly without any force. From the order dated 18th December, 1989 it is clear that the first revision petition had been dismissed not on merits but on the ground that respondent No,1 had failed to file a copy of the impugned order alongwith the petition. Such a decision which is not on merits cannot operate as res judicata nor can it debar a party from reagitating the same matter through properly constituted proceedings.
4. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is however well-founded. It was submitted that the second revision filed by respondent No,1 was barred by time and could not, in any case, have been accepted without deciding the question of limitation. The learned counsel explained that against the impugned order of Arbitration Council dated 17th July, 1989 the respondent had filed the revision on 20th December, 1989, although according to rule 16 of the Muslim Family Laws Rules, 1961, such a revision should have been filed within 30 days. A perusal of the order of the Collector shows that he was aware that the revision was barred by time and that it was accompanied by an application under section 5 of the Limitation for condonation of delay but despite having noted that fact no finding on this vital aspect was recorded by the Collector. This failure on his part has vitiated his order.
' As a result of what has been stated above the order of the Collector dated 3rd of June, 1990 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect with the result that the revision filed by respondent No,1 shall be deemed to be pending before respondent No,2 and shall be decided afresh by him in accordance with law.
' The parties are left to bear their own costs.