MAKSUD ALI Vs. HANEEFA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LIST has been revised.

(2.) NONE appears for the revisionist and opposite party No. 1. Perused the material on record. This revision is against order dated 9.10.91 and the recovery warrant dated 4.12.92. The office reported that the revision was barred by limitation as it was beyond time by 406 days. An application for condonation of delay was moved and it was stated in the accompanying affidavit that full facts and relevant materials have been mentioned in the affidavit filed with criminal revision. In the affidavit filed with the criminal revision, no ground has been stated as to why the revisionist could not file the revision against the impugned order dated 9.10.91 well within the stipulated period. It appears from the record that after learning about the ex parte judgment and order, the revisionist moved an application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and order on 29.10.91 and the said application was rejected by the court in default of the revisionist.

(3.) AS regards order dated 4.12.92 directing the issue of recovery warrant, no illegality was pointed out in the said order. Once the restoration was rejected and the order granting maintenance allowance was in existence and not stayed or set-aside by any Court, the revisionist is bound to pay maintenance allowance as ordered by the Court. The revision against the order dated 4.12.92 is devoid of merit and is dismissed at the admission stage.