MUHAMMAD SADIQ and others vs ALI ASGHAR KHAN and others

' MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, J.---This appeal is directed against the order dated 7-5-1994 of the learned Additional District Judge/Land Acquisition Judge, Abbottabad, whereby order dated 26-3- 1992 regarding transposition of respondents 15 to 19 as petitioners in the reference/objection petition, was recalled.

2. The appellants alongwith 22 others filed objection petition under section 30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act against Ali Asghar Khan and 13 others while Mst. Fazeelat Jan and 4 others were arrayed as pro forma defendants before the Collector, Land Acquisition for referring it to the Court. This reference was transmitted to the Court for adjudication on 9-1-1992.

On 26-3-1992 Mst. Fazeelat Jan etc. Respondents Nos.15 to 19 submitted an application before the Referee Court that they should be transposed as petitioners in the objection petition, bearing no objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner. On the same very day the learned Court accepted the application directing, their transposition as petitioners in the objection petition. This order was, however, not acted upon up to 12-2-1994, when counsel for respondents 15 to 19 pointed out that his clients were ordered to be transposed as petitioners but they have not so far been arrayed as such and on this pointation, the Court directed the petitioners to file an amended objection petition, which was submitted on 21-2-1994. The contesting respondents filed an application which was accepted vide impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the application for review being incompetent and time-barred was liable to rejection and the order of recall being without lawful authority is liable to be struck down.

4. Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 13 contended that although the order dated 26-3-1992 show his presence but he stated at the Bar that he never appeared before the Court on the said date and his presence has been recorded in routine. He vehemently stressed that the order was made at his back and was obtained with mala fide intentions as no notice of the application was given to him or to his clients. He submitted that the impugned order is proper and in accordance with law as the same has been passed by the Court in exercise of its inherent powers.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on the file.

6. The very perusal of the application would reveal that the application for transposition was submitted by Mst. Fazeelat Jan and others on 26-3-1992 on which the learned counsel for the petitioner recorded his no objection and on the same very day the order was passed. Since this order has been passed without affording any opportunity to the contesting respondents i,e, Ali Asghar etc., therefore, this order is against the norms of natural justice and on this score alone this was liable to be recalled. The application of respondents 15 to 19 for their transposition as petitioners ostensibly appears to have been filed in collusion with the objection petitioners as they in the first instance recorded their no objections to their being transposed as petitioners and secondly the objection-petitioners have filed the instant appeal whereas they have no locus standi for the same. The respondents 16 to 20 who have been placed ex parte in this appeal do not seem to be interested to pursue the matter and also appear to be least aggrieved by the impugned recalling order for the obvious reason that they have not filed any appeal/revision challenging the same, as such the appeal having been filed by improper persons is incompetent and deserves dismissal outright. Another aspect of the matter is that the appellants and respondents 16 to 20 kept mum for about 2 years and it was after the recording of some evidence that the learned counsel for the respondents sought implementation of the order dated 26-3-1992. It appears that the contesting respondents came to know of the said order on that day and thereupon they moved an application for recalling the same which can be treated as an application under section 151, C.P.C. The very impugned order also indicates that it has been passed in exercise of inherent powers, therefore, the question of limitation does not arise. The Court which passes an order can recall the same at any later stage in the interest of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. At this stage we refrain to go deep into the merits of the case both on factual and legal sides which were agitated before us, lest it may not prejudice the case of the either party. We do not find any substance in this appeal and are of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge in his inherent jurisdiction is proper and justifiable. Consequently this appeal is dismissed. Costs to follow the events.