' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.--- The petitioner, through the present petition, seeks review of the judgment, dated 6-2-2006, whereby, this Court converted petitioner's petition (C.P. No,744/L of 2005) into appeal and passed the following orders:-- "3. In view of what has been stated above this petition is converted into appeal and partly accepted and the stoppage of 5 increments reduced to one increment just for one year. These are the reasons of our short order, dated 6-2-2006 which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference."
2. Office has reported that the petition is barred by 4 days. The petitioner has filed an application (C.M.A. No,1826/L of 2006) for condonation of delay on the ground that "he was jobless and thus, was not in a position to contact his counsel for preparation and filing of the review petition".
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the available record. The only ground agitated in the afore-noted application, as canvassed by learned counsel, to our mind does not constitute "sufficient cause", within the parameters of section 5 of the Limitation Act, warranting condonation of delay. The petitioner has vaguely asserted that he could not file review petition in time without any supporting document. The petition is clearly barred by time and we are not persuaded to condone the delay.
4. Even if we condone the delay, the petitioner has no case on merits either. The contentions raised by the learned counsel were dealt with and decided by this Court. The petitioner has already got the desired relief. He cannot be allowed to reopen the entire case under the garb of review petition.
It is well-settled that the scope of review jurisdiction is very limited.
5. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the review petition is time-barred and devoid of merits as well, thus, stands dismissed on both the counts and review is declined.