' Ghulam Mustafa respondent filed suit for recovery of Rs,25,000 in Civil Court at Sargodha which was decreed on 30-7-1991. The petitioner's application for setting aside the ex parte decree was dismissed on 21-4-1993. Thereafter, petitioners filed review petition against the abovementioned order dated 21-4-1993 which was also dismissed on 23-9-1993. Against that order dated 23-9-1993, the petitioner filed a civil revision before the learned District Judge, who had returned the same for presentation before the High Court which was also dismissed on 16-3-1994 with the following observation:-- "Impugned order, therefore, did not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or a breach of procedural law. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed."
'An appeal was, thereafter, filed against the order dated 21-4-1993 against the order of Civil Judge.
Alongwith the appeal an application for condonation of delay was also filed. The Additional District Judge, Sargodha dismissed the appeal vide order dated 12-5-1994.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the basic order dated 21-4-1993 whereby evidence of the petitioner was closed could be treated as a void order because on the previous doted i,e, 17-3-1993, the case was adjourned for the evidence on the request of the petitioner.
Further contends that the order dated 17-3-1993 being decree was appealable and the petitioner wrongly filed the revision petition and also that it was so observed by this Court while disposing of Revision Petition No,605 of 1994, therefore, the petitioner filed revision petition before the Additional District Judge which has been wrongly dismissed.
3. I am afraid, this contention of the learned counsel is not sustainable because the order dated 21- 4-1993 has been merged into the order of this Court dated 16-2-1994 passed in Civil Revision No,605 of 1994 whereby it was observed that the impugned order did not suffer from jurisdiction or a breach of procedural law. The review petition was filed after a period of limitation. The learned Civil Judge has the jurisdiction of dismissing the review petition and the Additional Judge has rightly endorsed the findings by order dated 12-5-1994 which does not call for any interference in exercise of the civil revision of this Court under section 115, C.P.C. Consequently, this revision has no merits and the same is dismissed.