JUDGMENT : JAVED IQBAL WANI, J. 1. The instant Review Petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking review of judgment and order dated 10 th September, 2025, passed in CR No. 16/2025, titled as “Mehraj-ud-din Malla & Ors. V. Mst. Zaina”. 2. According to the petitioner while being impleaded as contesting respondent in the civil revision supra upon hearing of the said revision petition on 08 th September, 2025 partly, same was directed to be listed on 10 th September, 2025, for further consideration, however, the Registry though notified the date of listing of the matter on 17 th September, 2025, yet the matter came up for consideration before the Court on 10 th September, 2025, and came to be decided the matter on the said date and that owing to the change/preponing of the date from 17 th September, 2025 to 10 th September, 2025, the petitioner herein could not cause appearance and contest the revision petition. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record 3. Perusal of the record tends to show that the revision petition supra initially came to be partly heard on 3 rd September, 2025, upon hearing counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondents (Petitioner herein) as well and the matter was adjourned for continuation of arguments of the counsel for the respondents at his request and directed to be listed for further consideration on 4 th September, 2025. 4. Record of the proceedings however, reveals that on 4 th September, 2025, the counsel for the respondent-petitioner herein did not choose to appear and the Court directed the listing of the matter on 8 th September, 2025, as case number 1 with further direction to the Registry to notify the date to the then counsel, appearing for the respondent-petitioner herein. 5. Record of the proceedings would further reveal that on 8 th September, 2025, yet again the counsel for the respondent-petitioner herein did not choose to appear, so much so, the respondent as well did not appear in person, as a consequence whereof, the respondent-petitioner herein was set ex-parte and the matter was directed to be listed for further consideration on 10 th September, 2025, and on 10 th September, 2025, again neither the counsel for the respondent-petitioner herein appeared nor did the petitioner herein appeared and consequently the judgment and order under review came to be passed. 6. 6. Record from the e-court pertaining to the case in hand came to be summoned by this Court having regard to the plea raised by the petitioner herein which inter-alia reveals that the order dated 8 th September, 2025, i.e, the date on which the respondent-petitioner herein came to be set ex- parte and the matter was directed to be listed for further consideration on 10 th September, 2025, stands uploaded on the website of this Court on the said date, i.e, on 8 th September, 2025, itself, thereby suggesting the information of listing of the case as also the nature of proceedings conducted on the said date. However, date notification of the record of the e-courtreveals that the date next date fixed in the matter has been shown as 17 th September, 2025, after 8 th September, 2025instead of 10 th September, 2025. 7. Since the precise plea raised by the petitioner herein is that the petitioner was awaiting to attend the case on 17 th September, 2025, based upon the date notified by the e-court and had no knowledge about the listing of the case on 10 th September, 2025, yet the petitioner has remained silent as toon which date the petitioner came to know about the status of the case, fixed in the e-court notification for 17 th September, 2025. As has been noticed in the preceding paras, the date fixed in the case on 8 th September, 2025, had been 10 th September, 2025 recorded in the order passed by the Court which order had been uploaded on the website of this Court and on the said date the petitioner herein had been set ex parte, as such, the e- court notification showing the date as 17 th September, 2025 loses significance. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid position obtaining in the matter, this Court does not find ground much less recognized by law requiring the review of the judgment and order. 9. The Review Petition is found grossly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.