' Briefly stated the facts of the case out of which present Constitutional petition has arisen are that petitioner allegedly filed Mukhbari application againt one Akhtar Ali on 30-3-1974 which was being heard by the respondent. This petition was fixed for hearing on 11-12-1980 when none of the petitioners appeared in Court and even their learned counsel Ch. Muhammad Rafique, Advocate left the Court without informing as to whether he will appear in the case or not. Petitioner No,1 had earlier been directed to appear in person but he was also not present and the learned counsel for the petitioner showed his ignorance about his address of availability. Consequently, Mukhbari application was dismissed for want of prosecution and also on merits inasmuch as it was found to have been forged by addition of the name of Aziz Din petitioner No,1. Subsequently, petitioners filed a time-barred application on 16-7-1981 seeking setting aside of the order dated 11-12-1980 and for allowing to produce evidence in support of their case. This application was dismissed by the respondent vide order dated 16-7-1981 on the ground that the respondent has no jurisdiction to review his earlier order. In this Constitutional petition, both these orders have been challenged as having been passed illegally and without lawful authority.
2. In support of the writ petition learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the order passed by the respondent is illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as the same appears to be misreading of the application filed by the petitioners wherein they had not prayed for review of the earlier order but had prayed for restoration of their application. Consequently, according to the learned counsel, respondent has failed to exercise a vested jurisdiction under the law.
3. I have gone through the record and have considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and I am of the view that the arguments are without any basis and force. Order dated 11-12-1980 has not been passed merely for want of prosecution but has been passed also on merits. In the application filed by the petitioners, petitioners have prayed for setting aside of the order dated 11-12-1980 which includes the dismissal of the application on merits as well. Consequently, unless and until the Court had the power to review the order, this portion of the order could not have been set aside and as such the order passed by the respondent refusing to set aside the order dated 11-12-1980 appears to be unexceptionable. Even otherwise, order dated 11- 12-1980 appears to be lawful and just. It is admitted position that none of the petitioners was present on the date of hearing. Petitioner Not has been directed to appear in person but he did not appear in person in the Court. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also did not assist the Court and rather left the Court-room without disclosing any reason as to why he is not appearing in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioners being an officer of the Court was responsible to assist the Court and to appear before the Court and to disclose all the facts and circumstances.
Leaving the Court-room without even telling the Reader of the Court as to why the learned counsel does not like to appear in the case cannot be appreciated. It was the duty of the learned counsel at least to apprise the Court about any difficulty which he was facing to appear in the Court.
Consequently, in such like case, learned Court below had no option but to proceed in the absence of the petitioner and their learned counsel, hence no fault can be found with regard to this petition of the order passed by the respondent. Regarding merits, learned counsel for the petitioners has not addressed any argument and does not even contend that the findings of the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner are not correct, and the same, therefore, remain unchallenged. In view of the above, there is no force in this writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed. As nobody has appeared to contest the writ petition, the parties are left to bear their own costs.