' SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.---R.S.A. No,535 of 1978 was accepted vide judgment dated 18-6-1998. The said judgment was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan through C.P. No,930 of 1998 by Mst. Khurshid Begum through legal representatives which was disposed on 28-6-1999 in view of the observations contained in paragraph 2 of the said order which reads as follows: "2. The sole grievance of the petitioners is that they received a notice from the High Court that the appeal was listed for hearing on 11-6-1998 but when they approached the High Court on the said date, they discovered that the case had actually been heard on 10-6-1998 and thus they were condemned unheard. If that is so, the petitioners should in the first instance bring their grievance to the notice of the High Court through a review petition. If such an application is moved, the time spent by the petitioners in prosecuting the petition before this Court, shall be excluded while computing the period of limitation."
The review petition was filed accordingly which in view of the elevation of the Hon'ble Judge to the apex Court, has been placed for hearing before us.
2. The learned counsel contends that judgment dated 18-6-1998 calls for review for the reasons precisely stated in Clause (b) of paragraph 5 of the petition, which is as follows:-- "(b) That a notice/summon in the name of Mst. Khurshid Begum i,e, the predecessor of petitioners was got received to the petitioners wherein the date for the hearing of R.S.A. No,535 of 1978 was incorporated as 11-6-1998, photocopy whereof is attached as Annexure "C". The petitioners put their appearance in this Honourable Court on 11-6-1998 when it transpired that the appeal had been heard by this Honourable Court on 10-6-1998 which fact stands established from the perusal of said judgment and decree being produced on record as Annexture "D". So in this way the petitioners had been condemned unheard, inasmuch as their above named predecessor had died during the pendency of said appeal and the petitioners were neither brought on record nor they could take timely steps for defending their case in this Honourable Court. It is submitted that the said error/omission was very much apparent on the face of this case which could not be graciously taken into consideration by this Honourable Bench in Chamber and this sole ground is sufficient enough to make a gracious review of the judgment and decree dated 18-6-1998."
' His main grievance is that the petitioners who were legal representatives of Mst. Khurshid Begum had been condemned unheard.Places reliance upon Mst. Nigar Bibi and others v. Salahuddin Khan and others PLD 1990 SC 76 and Mst. Fehmida Khatoon v. Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation), Lahore and another PLD 1975 Lah.
942. The learned counsel for the appellant (now cited as respondent in the review petition) has produced before us the cause list of the learned Bench to show that the case was indeed listed for hearing on 11-6-1998 which was heard on the said date and the judgment therein was announced on 18-6-1998.
3. In order to find out whether the appeal was heard on 10-6-1998 or 11-6-1998, we have perused the file as also the cause list by calling the "Register Pashi" of that period. It is evident that the case was listed for 11-6-1998 and was heard on the said date. Mst. Khurshid Begum, the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners, had engaged a learned counsel whose name had duly appeared in the cause list of 11-6-1998 and even notice admittedly had been received by the petitioners for the said date. The petitioners in fact want to take advantage of the date of hearing mentioned at the' top of the judgment dated 10-6-1998 which shows as if the appeal was heard on 10-6-1998. But as is borne out from the record, the case appeared at Serial No,8 in the regular cause list of the learned Judge for 11-6-1998 and was heard on the said date. Judgment therein was announced on 18-6- 1998. On both these dates i,e, 11-6-1998 and 18-6-1998 the names of the learned counsel for the parties duly appeared therein. The date mentioned at the top of the judgment i,e, 10-6-1998 as date of hearing of the appeal is merely a typographical error having crept in due to the oversight of the Court official which has no material bearing. Such an assumption that the appeal was heard on 10-6-1998 (which was not the date of hearing) stands belied by the record/entries duly maintained by the Court having sound credibility. The standing and legal efficacy of judgment of High Court, a Court of record, cannot be impaired on such assumptions. No advantage can, thus, be taken of such an error. It stands corrected accordingly. In the instant case the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners namely Mst. Khurshid Begum (respondent in the appeal) had been served and had the services of a learned counsel whose name had also appeared in the cause list.
Therefore, no support or strength can be gained from the precedents cited by the learned counsel.
' In view of the above we do not see any good ground for review of judgment. The petition is dismissed accordingly.