' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN, J.---Facts of the case giving rise to the filing of instant writ petition briefly stated are that Muhammadi Khan, petitioner herein, filed a suit on 19-9-1996 against Mehmood Khan and two others defendants, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nowshera, for declaration to the effect that plaintiff was owner in possession of suit- land (detailed in the plaint) by virtue of purchase from his brother Gul Mast vide Deed No,175, dated 21-8-1986 and Mutation No,2212 is void, illegal, without jurisdiction and liable for rejection. The suit was resisted and the allegations of the petitioner were repudiated. Necessary issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties were formulated. During pendency of the suit Mst. Zamro Bibi (widow) and Mst. Razia Begum (daughter) of late Gul Mast, original owner of suit-land, filed an application through their attorney Dil Khan for their impleadment as party to the suit. The application having been contested was allowed vide order dated 4-12-2000. The petitioner filed amended plaint. Issues were framed and parties were directed Co file lists of witnesses. The petitioner submitted list of witnesses but defendants Nos.5 and 6 namely Mst. Razia Begum and Mst. Zamro Bibi failed to do so. They were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 5-6-2000. An application was moved for cancellation of the ex parte proceedings. The application was resisted. It was accepted vide order dated 4-12-2000. A revision petition was filed which was dismissed in limine by order dated 21-3-2001 of Additional District Judge, Nowshera.
2. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court through instant writ petition with the prayer that on acceptance of this writ petition the impugned orders of the Court of first instance as well as the Appellate Court, be declared as without jurisdiction, illegal and void.
3. We have heard at length Mr. Nazir Muhammad Khan, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Adam Khan, Advocate for respondent in the light of the material on file.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned orders of the Courts below on a number of grounds and attempted to argue that in view of the default on the part of Mst. Razia Begum and Mst. Zamro Bibi to submit list of witnesses in compliance without Court order, the learned trial Court had no justifiable reason to accept application of the ladies and set aside ex parte proceedings initiated against them. He also maintained that learned Additional District Judge, Nowshera had no good reason to affirm order of the Court below and dismiss revision petition of the petitioner in limine.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the contrary, supported the impugned orders of the Courts below and contended that same having been passed in accordance with law warrant no interference and writ petition is not maintainable. He relied on Rana Mamoon Rashid v. Kokab Noorani Okarvi and 4 others (PLD 1999 Karachi 257) and State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan v. Mst. Maroof Jan and 2 others (PLD 1986 Peshawar 121).
6. The petitioner claims to have purchased suit-land from his brother late Gul Mast Khan on the strength of an 'Iqrar Nama' dated 1-8-1986. This 'Ikrar Nama' is unregistered document. Admittedly, Mst. Zamro Bibi is widow and Mst. Razia Begum is daughter of Gul Mast Khan deceased. The name of the deceased is incorporated in the Revenue Record as owner of suit-land. The widow and daughter of the deceased have been impleaded in suit as necessary parties. They were duly represented through an attorney, who subsequently failed to appear in Court on account of which ex parte proceedings were initiated against the ladies. An application has been moved for cancellation of ex parte proceedings which has been accepted for valid reasons. There is no limitation for setting aside the ex parte proceedings. The impugned order of the trial Judge and maintained by the Appellate Court has been passed in furtherance of justice and not in aid of abuse of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that circumstances exist justifying interference in the impugned order through exercise of power under the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The petition appears to have been filed with sole purpose to prolong the matter as long as possible and deprive the ladies of their due share in the legacy left behind by Gul Mast deceased. The petition is without substance. The same is dismissed with costs.