' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.--- Through this C.M.A. It is prayed on behalf of the petitioner that Syed Asghar Hussain Subzwari, Senior Advocate Supreme Court of this Court be Permitted to apppear and argue the review petition.
2. Mr. Gul Zarin Kiyani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court has raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the review petition and the competence of Syed Asghar Hussain Subzwari, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court to argue the review petition on behalf of the petitioner. In support of his objection Mr. Gul Zarin Kiyani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court has relied upon Abdul Majeeb and another v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others 1980 SCM R 504 and Muhammad Younas and others v. The State PLD 2005 SC 93.
3. We have heard Syed Asghar Hussain Subzwari, Senior Advocate Supreme. Court in support of his application. He has ss the hurdle created in the way of the petitioner, as stipulated in Rule 6 of Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, and the rulings cited herein above with regard to authority and competence of Syed Asghar Hussain Subzwari, Senior Advocate Supreme Court to file and argue the review petition. We are, therefore, not persuaded to allow this application to permit learned Senior Advocate Supreme. Court to argue the review petition. The application is accordingly dismissed.
4. Nevertheless, in order to satisfy ourselves we on our own, have proceeded to examine the judgment sought to be reviewed through this review petition. We find that the impugned judgment has been recorded strictly in accordance with the rule laid down in the case of Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir Muhammad through L.Rs, and others PLD 2007 SC 302 which precisely requires the plaintiff to specify in the plaint, the date, time and place of making Talb-e- Muwathibat. Thus, the judgment does not suffer from any apparent error to justify its review. The review petition being without merit is, therefore, dismissed.