' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner request for adjournment on the ground that Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner is unable to attend the Court on account of a meeting of the National Assembly at Islamabad. We are not satisfied with the ground for adjournment because the petition is pending since 10-6-2003 and it is barred by 196 days on the face of record.
2. We have heard Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, learned Advocateon-Record on the application for condonation of delay filed by him pursuant to the Court motion notice issued by the office pointing out bar of limitation.
3. Although in the prayer clause of memo. Of the main petition, leave is claimed against judgment/order, dated 10-3-2003 passed by High Court in Special Sales Tax Appeal No,27 of 2002, suspension of operation of the judgment is referable to the basic judgment, dated 27-9-2002, of which review was sought by the petitioner-Collector of Sales Tax (East), Karachi. Learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner is correct to state that the petition would be within time if the period of limitation is reckoned from the date of dismissal of the review petition i.e, 10-3-2003 but essentially the prayer seeks to challenge and quash the judgment passed in appeal, dated 27- 9-2002 and against which this petition would be patently barred by 196 days, for which there is hardly any explanation. Learned Advocate-on-Record has stated in the application for condonation of delay that the order, dated 27-9-2002 was not challenged but review petition was filed before the High Court, which was decided on 10-3-2003 and the department' could not file petition in time due to filing of review petition before the High Court and was bona fide pursuing a remedy available in law. We are afraid, we cannot subscribe to this submission of the learned counsel, which is completely untenable and misconceived. Period spent for pursuing review petition is not liable to exclusion while reckoning the period of limitation for assailing the basic judgment, dated 27-9-2002. For all intents and purposes, object behind filing this petition is to call in question the correctness and validity of the initial judgment, which has attained finality by efflux of a long period and a valuable right accrued in favour of the private respondent, which cannot be lightly disturbed and destroyed for the simple reason that the petitioner has been negligent in prosecuting his remedy.
4. Afore said question came up for consideration before this Court in Ghulam Hussain v. Kanwar Ashiq Ali Khan PLD 19809(sic) SC 198, in which following dictum was laid down:- "----Art. 185 read with Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O.XXVI and Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.XLVII, R.1- --Review--Petition for review dismissed on ground of plaintiffs/petitioners having not been able to point out any error apparent on face of record---Petition for leave to appeal filed in Supreme Court when such petition barred by many days and no application for condonation of delay filed--- Contention that review being short of order refusing to review previous order petition within limitation qua such order---Had, no tenable---Object of petitioner while seeking leave to appeal against order refusing to review basic order in fact being to seek vacation of previous basic order and such order becoming final by efflux of time, refusal to review cannot give a fresh period of limitation to challenge same."
5. For the afore said facts, circumstances, reasons are consistent with the practice and precedents of this Court, we find no merit in the application for extension of time, which is refused.
Consequently, petition is dismissed as barred by 196 days.