Mst. HAFEEZ BIBI AND OTHERS vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) AND OTHERS
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their review application by the High Court, which had earlier dismissed their writ petition challenging a land allotment decision by the Settlement Commissioner. The petition for leave to appeal was barred by 28 days, with the explanation for delay deemed unsatisfactory, particularly regarding the period after copies of documents were obtained. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the petitioners were essentially attempting to challenge the original order of the High Court, which had become final by efflux of time, as a refusal to review does not provide a fresh period of limitation. The Court held that a party cannot bypass the finality of a basic order by framing the petition as an appeal against the dismissal of a review application. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as time-barred and unsustainable.
- Does the dismissal of a review application provide a fresh period of limitation to challenge the original order?
- Can a petitioner bypass the limitation period for challenging a primary order by filing an appeal against the order refusing review?
- Is a delay in filing a petition adequately explained when the period between obtaining necessary copies and filing the petition remains unaccounted for?
ORDER
' M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-The petitioners, who are informants, had instituted a writ petition challenging the decision of the Settlement Commissioner to allot the cancelled land to Rehmat Ali, respondent No, 3, who was held to be the prior informant. The High Court declining to interfere with the finding on a question of fact as to who between the petitioners and Rehmat Ali, respondent No, 3, was the prior informant, dismissed the writ petition in limine on 11-2-1977. The petitioners moved a review application but the same, too, was dismissed on 26-6-1979 for the reason that "Nothing fresh has been urged to justify review". .
2. They have, by this petition, sought leave to appeal from the High Court's latter order dated 26-6- 1979 whereby their review application had been dismissed. The petition is late by 28 days. The explanation offered is that Muhammad Anwar, one of the petitioners, who had been deputed by the other petitioners to do the needful for filing the present petition had fallen ill in the third week of August, 1979 and had been advised rest for five weeks for which reason he could not obtain copies of the relevant documents in time. The explanation is not satisfactory and in any case the delay from 24-9-1979, when the copies had been made available, to 4-10-1979 when this petition was filed, is not explained. The delay of each and every day has to be explained as repeatedly held by this Court. See Zafarullah Khan v. Hussain Bibi and Ahmad Din v. Rasul Bibi in the same report at p.
213. In fact, what the petitioners are really seeking, as is clear from their petition, is the reversal of the earlier decision of the High Court dated " 11-2-1977. But in that case their petition is late by 965 days. This Court had held in Ghulam Hussain v. Kan war Ashiq All Khan .1 2 ' but while seeking leave to appeal against order refusing to review the main previous order, in fact the object of the petitioner is to seek vacation of the said previous order which by efflux of time has become final. The fact that in review the Court further affirmed the aforesaid order is immaterial inasmuch as a refusal to review the same will not give a fresh period of limitation to challenge it. In this peculiar situation, therefore, when the previous order has become binding on the petitioners, they cannot be allowed to bypass it by simply pleading that the present petition is against order refusing to review the same because while stating so their intention is to point out errors and mistakes in the basic order which were sought to be removed through a review application but which failed."
3. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. PLD 1968 SC 61 PLD 1980 SC 198