MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus MUNAWAR BIBI

Through this application Muhammad Aslam petitioner wants this Court to review its order dated 13‑2‑1985 whereby Writ Petition No. 4947 of 1984 filed by the present petitioner was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on P L D 1970 Lah. 6; P L D 1976 S C 37; P L D 1969 Lah. 1039; P L D 1977 Lah. 1173; P L D 1978 Lah. 232; P L D 1958 S C 104; P L D 1958 S C 41; PLD 1957 Lah. 914 and 1984 C L C 879, to contend that since the order dated 2‑10‑1984 passed by Chairman Arbitration Council, respondent No. 2 was not in accordance with law, therefore, the revision which was filed more than one year of the order could not have been dismissed by Deputy Commissioner, Lahore, respondent No. 3 as barred by time; that in case the petitioner had absented himself, the Chairman, Arbitration Council should have issued fresh notice to him and that the constitution of the arbitration council was illegal. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents has supported the order sought to be reviewed.

3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that while passing the order dated 13‑2‑1985 I had applied my mind to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and had given reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at by me. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any error apparant on the face of record. He has also not been able to show any other sufficient reason to review the order. It is a matter of record that at one stage, the petitioner had participated in proceedings before Chairman Arbitration Council. He was very much present before the aforesaid Chairman on 25‑9‑1983 and thereafter he did not care to appear before him. The Chairman had passed his order on 13‑11‑1983. The petitioner filed appeal before Deputy Commissioner, Lahore, respondent No. 3 on 9‑4‑1984 i.e. after about 5 months which was dismissed on 2‑10‑1984 as barred by time. In his application for condonation of delay, the petitioner had taken the plea that he was neither served nor came to know about the proceedings against him before Chairman Arbitration Counsel till 7‑4‑1984. This plea was obviously false because the petitioner was very much present before Chairman Arbitration Council on 25‑9‑1983. The case‑law cited by the learned counsel being quite distinguishable does not help the petitioner in any manner. The submissions made by him do not constitute sufficient reason to review my order dated 13‑2‑1985.

For what has been said above, there being no sufficient ground for a review, the application is, hereby, rejected.

A.A./M‑440/L ‑‑‑‑‑ Review application rejected.