Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, J.--This petition under Article 188 of the Constitution read with Order XXVI Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 has been filed seeking review of the judgment dated 21.12.2006 rendered by this Court in CA No. 241 of 2005.
2. This review petition has been drawn and filed with the certificate in terms of Order XXVI, Rule 4 of Supreme Court Rules, 1980, given by Mr. Zafar Abbas Zaidi, learned ASC, who was an associate of Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, ASC, learned counsel for the petitioner in the appeal and under Rule 6 of the Order XXVI of the ibid rules, the review is not entertainable unless it is drawn by the Advocate who appeared at the hearing of the case. In the present case, Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, learned ASC, appeared in the appeal but he has neither drawn this petition nor has given the required certificate and while appearing before the Court, having shown his inability to appear in this review petition has requested that Mr. Zafar Abbas Zaidi, ASC, who was his associate in the appeal, may be allowed to argue the review petition.
This Court in similar situation in Sh. Anwar-ul-Haq Vs. Miss Surraya Perveen and 2 others (1971 SC 171) entertained review petition and allowed the advocate who assisted the senior counsel in the main case as his associate to argue the review and we following the same principle, allow Mr. Zafar Abbas Zaidi, learned ASC, to argue this review petition.
3. The subject-matter of the dispute in the appeal between the legal heirs of Dr. Fazl-e-Rehim was in respect of their entitlement to receive the share in his Saving Certificates account in accordance with the Law of inheritance in Islam. The appeal was however, decided on the basis ,of the statement of Syed Rehman, learned ASC, who represented the respondents in the appeal and Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, learned ASC, counsel for the petitioner in appeal. The statements of the learned counsel for the parties in appeal are incorporated in the judgment under review as under:- "STATEMENT OF SYED REHMAN, ASC I Said Rehman, ASC am agreed with the proposition of this Honourable Court, that the title noted cases may be sent back to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Peshawar for issuance succession certificate to the real L.Rs of Dr. Fazle Rahim within a period of three months from today.
It may be mentioned here, that in CR No. 942 of 2004 (page 32 of the paper book) filed by contesting respondents name of Jamila Wazir has been mentioned as the LRs of Dr. Fazle Rahim deceased.
STATEMENT OF SYED IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN GILLANI, ASC 'We agree that the case be remanded back to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Peshawar for determination of the legal heirs after recording evidence on the issues already framed."
4. This review petition has been filed with a delay of 51 days and the condonation of delay has been sought on the ground that the petitioner having no hope of justice from the Bench of the Supreme Court which had decided the main appeal did not earlier file the review petition for the reason that under Order XXVI,-Rule 8 of ibid Rules, the review petition is to be placed before the same Bench which finally decided the case or at least one of the Judges of the said Bench is the Member of the Bench before which review petition is to be fixed and since in the present case, Chief Justice of Pakistan was the author of the judgment under review who has ceased to function due to the filing of Reference against him under Article 209 of the Constitution on 9.3.2007 by the President of Pakistan, therefore, the petitioner in the changed circumstances having considered appropriate to avail the remedy of review, filed the review petition.
5. We are afraid the petitioner has alleged personal bias against the second member of the Bench which decided the appeal and according to the Rule 8 of Order XXVI of Supreme Court Rules, 1980, in absence of author Judge, the other Judge of the Bench is included in the Bench hearing the review. In the present case the author judge ceased to function but the second member of the Bench is functioning and is also available to be included in the Bench, for the purpose of review in terms of Rule 8 ibid, therefore, the ground taken for condonation of delay is unfounded both in facts as well as in law. The judgment under review was a consent judgment which was rendered on 21.12.2006 on the basis of statement made by ;the learned counsel for the parties and if the petitioner was not satisfied with the statement made by his counsel before the Court or had any reservation against any member of the Bench, he after filing the review petition within the prescribed time provided in the rules, could conveniently raise objection to the independence of the Bench for the purpose of hearing the review petition by a Bench other than the Bench or the Judges who heard the appeal but the petitioner did not take any step to file the review petition till the filing of the Reference by the President against the Chief Justice of Pakistan so much so he did not apply for the certified copy of the judgment within the limitation for filing the review petition rather he applied for the copy on 3.2.2007 i.e. much after the expiry of limitation to file the review, which was prepared on 6.3.2007 and petitioner having collected the same on 12.3.2007 filed the review petition with a delay of 51 days. This is settled law that delay of each day must be satisfactorily explained and the ground on the basis of which condonation is sought must be recognized in law a valid ground and sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The petitioner having not applied for the copy of the judgment within the limitation for filing the review petition has not been able to explain the delay and further the reason advanced by him for not making an application for a copy of the judgment to file the review petition within limitation, was not rooted in any personal disability, therefore, the same cannot be considered a valid ground or a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. We having considered the ground taken by the petitioner in the Miscellaneous application moved by him for condonation of delay, have found that the apprehension in his mind that he would not get fair treatment and justice from the Bench which heard the appeal, did not file the review petition prior to the date of Reference filed by the President against the Chief Justice of Pakistan, who was author of the judgment under review and preferred to avail the remedy in the changed circumstances with the expectation of a favourable decision, was unfounded as the other member of the Bench is functioning, therefore, the ground urged on behalf of the petitioner in the review petition would not fall within the ambit of Supreme Court Rules to be considered a valid ground for condonation of delay and review of the judgment.##TEE# This may be added that the other member of Bench which decided the appeal, has disassociated himself vide order dated 16.3.2007, from the Bench before which this review petition was fixed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner having wrong notion of the rules to maintain the review petition without offering satisfactory explanation of delay of 51 days, has tried to convince us that the question of limitation in the given circumstances, may not have much importance and the Court in the discretionary jurisdiction, has ample power to condone the delay for the purpose of decision of review petition on merits. The petitioner due to his own negligence and choice, did not file the review petition within time and after expiry of limitation on the asis of self-created ground of bias of the Bench has sought interference of this Court in the consent judgment in review jurisdiction. The scope of review is limited and unless very strong ground is shown for interference, the review is not entertained and the delay of even one day cannot be condoned without a sufficient cause.
7. The petitioner present in Court, on the conclusion of the argument of his learned counsel, made an attempt to address the Court and add his own arguments in support of this petition. This is settled law that the case cannot be reopened on merits in review and the rules also do not permit the review petitioner to himself address the Court if he was being represented by the counsel.
8. In view of the foregoing reasons and peculiar circumstances of the present case, we do not find any valid ground or sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 51 days in filing this review petition against a consent judgment and consequently, the same is dismissed as barred by time.