' The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that Muhammad Yar filed a suit against Muhmmad Hayat, father of the petitioner on 14-2-1983. The same was decreed in favour of Muhammad Yar by way of consent decree. The petitioner filed application under section 12(2), C.P.C. On 13-4-1992 through Malik Muhammad Sher Joya, Advocate who appeared on certain dates. Subsequently Malik Muhammad Sher Joya shifted to Lahore. Thereafter petitioner, allegedly engaged Mr. Najam-ul-Hassan. Advocate who appeared two years before the trial Court. The application was finally dismissed as withdrawn on the statement of Mr. Najamul-Hassan Hamdani, Advocate on 4-9-1997. The petitioner being aggrieved filed revision petition before the District Judge, Khushab who dismissed the same vide judgment and decree, dated 17-12-1998. The respondent filed reply of application under section 12(2), C.P.C. And controverted the allegation levelled in the application. Out of the pleading of the parties the Trial Court framed the following issues:---
(1) Whether Syed Najamul Hassan, Advocate was properly appointed counsel for the applicant and the said Advocate had withdrawn the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. According to law? OPR.
(2) If Issue No,1 is not proved, whether the order, dated 10-6-1992 whereunder the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was dismissed as withdrawn is illegal void and inoperative as against the right of the applicant? OPA.
(3) Relief.
Both the Courts below after proper appreciation of the evidence gave finding of fact that the petitioner has engaged Syed Najam-ul-Hassan Hamdani, Advocate who appeared for about two years. He made statement to withdraw the application. The ,learned counsel of the petitioner contended that the petitioner did not engage Mr. Najamul-Hassan Hamdani, Advocate and did not give power of attorney to Mr. Najam-ulHassan Hamdani, Advocate, therefore, Mr. Najam-ul-Hassan Hamdani, Advocate was not competent and authorised to give statement to withdraw the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. On 4-9-1997, therefore, judgment of both the Courts below are result of misreading and non-reading of the record. He further stated that when the basic order is Without lawful authority then the question of limitation does not arise at all.
2. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record. It is admitted fact that consent decree was passed on 14-3-1983 and the petitioner filed application under section 12(2), C. P . C . On 13-4-1992 after three years. It is pertinent, to mention here that the consent decree was passed on 14-3-1983 in the lifetime of the father of the petitioner namely Muhammad Hayat who did not challenge the same. It is also admitted facts that both the Courts below have given concurrent finding of fact that petitioner has engaged Mr. Najam-ul-Hassan Hamdani, Advocate. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner did not even attach power of attorney alongwith this revision petition. The writ petition is not maintainable as the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PLD 1981 SC 246, PLD 1984 SC 422. It is also admitted fact that both the Courts below after proper appreciation of evidence have given finding of fact against the petitioner that the petitioner has engaged Mr. Najam-ul-Hassan Hamdani, Advocate. This Court while exercising power under Article 199 of the Constitution has no jurisdiction to substitute its own decision in place of the decision of the Tribunal below as the Division Bench of this Court principle laid down by in Masaddaq Hussain's case (PLD 1973 Lahore 600).
' In view of what has been discussed above this writ petition has no force and the same is dismissed.