CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.--- The petitioner has challenged the vires of orders of Tribunals below dated 25.4.1987 and 28.9.1987 through this Constitutional petition. The petitioner's counsel submits that Chairman decided the case against petitioner ex parte vide order dated 25.4.1987. The revision petition was dismissed by D.C. As time-barred vide order dated 28.9.1987. The ex parte order was passed against respondent No. 3 by this Court on 2.3.1993; that D.C. Was erred in law to dismiss the revision petition against the petitioner on the ground of limitation as the basic order was passed by the Chairman against the petitioner ex parte order; that after addition of Article 2-A in the Constitution, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has insisted that cases must. Be decided on merits instead of technicalities.
2. Malik Akhtar Hussain Awan, learned A.A.G., submits that substantial justice has been done, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable as both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of fact against petitioner, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of .Learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is admitted fact that D.C. Dismissed the revision petition on the ground of limitation. After addition of Article 2-A in the Constitution, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has insisted that cases must be decided on merits instead of technicalities as the law laid down in Said Muhammad's case (PLD 1989 SC 532). This Court has also followed the same principle in the following judgments:- 1999 M LD 2202 (M/s. Adamjee Constitution's case). 1999 M LD 2146 (Alam Din's case).