ABDUL REHMAN Versus ABDUL SHAKOOR

ORDER

The facts relevant' for the disposal of these review petitions according to the petitioners are that the petitioners filed suits for pre‑emption on the basis of their superior rights of tenancy against the respondent. on the ground that Mutation No.194 of exchange which was sanctioned on 17‑1‑1974 between Dewan Ali and Isab Ali etc. and‑ Abdul Shakoor, who obtained 9 Kanals .13 Marlas and 19 Kanals 7 Marlas in Khewat No.132, was in fact a .sale and it was wrongly given the colour of exchange in order to defeat the case of the petitioners because on the same day Dewan Ali and Isab Ali returned this land to Barkat 'Ali, uncle of the respondent . The Collector vide his orders dated 15‑6‑1981 and 13‑7‑1981 decreed the suits in favour of the petitioners against the respondent. These orders/decrees were assailed in appeal by the respondent before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan who vide his order dated 3‑4‑19$5 set aside these orders/decrees. The petitioners challenged that order before the Member (Revenue) who vide his order dated 6‑2‑1986 dismissed these petitions in limine as being time‑barred by 200 days. The petitioners invoked writ jurisdiction on the ground that the Additional Commissioner did not prepare decree sheets therefore limitation cannot be counted from the date of that order:

2. Under the direction of Lahore High Court the Additional Commissioner prepared decree sheets on 22‑3‑1989. The petitioners have now filed these review petitions after the lapse of 3 years and 1 month on the plea that decree was prepared late.

3.. This single order will dispose of these review petitions being inter connected.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners maintained that the Revenue Courts are Civil Courts for the purpose of para.25 of MLR‑115 and as such their final orders are decrees and decree‑sheets have to be prepared. The limitation starts only from the date of decree‑sheets and not otherwise. It has been held in PLD 1967, Supreme Court 271, that limitation starts from signing of the decree. It was held in 1985 CLC 1788 that the appeal filed without a copy of the decree due to negligence of Copying Agency was a sufficient reason by itself to condone the delay. The learned counsel also relied on AIR 1960 Punjab 247 and 1982 CLC 550, in this regard. The learned counsel further contended that any order based on wrong notion of law can be reviewed as held in 1973 Law Notes 295. This was the error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned orders which may be reviewed.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent in his written arguments submitted that the petitioners had filed a Constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court against the impugned order of the Member, Board of Revenue, dated 6‑2‑1986 which was dismissed vide order dated 3‑4‑1989. The order of the Lahore High Court was never challenged before the Supreme Court and it had thus attained finality. No review petition lies against the order of the High Court before the Board of Revenue. The review petition was therefore liable to be dismissed as it, inter alia, amounted to contempt of Court.

6. I have considered the arguments and perused the case record. The review petitions are time‑barred to the extent of 3 years and 1 month, and no plausible explanation for the delay has been put forth. In the meanwhile, the petitioners had taken recourse to the Lahore High Court for enunciation of a constitutional point and their objection was dismissed. There is nothing on the record or in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners if the order dated 3‑4‑1989 of the Lahore High Court was challenged in the Supreme Court. The law points now raised by the petitioners stand decided by the Lahore High Court and that order has attained finality. I therefore, do not see any reason to proceed any further with the instant review petitions which are accordingly dismissed.

AA./398/R Review applications dismissed.