' SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.---The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 7-4-2008 passed by the respondent No,1 wherein a second review petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the orders passed by the revenue hierarchy are not in consonance with the legal requirements and in cases of gross illegality; there is no impediment with the Board of Revenue to adjudicate and decide the matter de novo to ward off such injustice.
3. The learned A.A-G. And the learned counsel for the respondent No,2 submitted that the moot point for adjudication in the present matter is as to whether there is any provision in the Board of Revenue Act, 1957 enabling it to exercise powers for a second review not. According to the learned counsel, only one review is permissible under section 8, the same was availed by the petitioner and it was dismissed and thereafter the second review petition on the same subject-matter is incompetent, consequently, the petition may be dismissed.
3. Heard.
4. The controversy in hand revolves and gravitates around licial interpretation of section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957. For ready reference section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act is reproduced:-- "Any person considering himself aggrieved by a decree passed or order made by the Board and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order was made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply to the Board for a review of judgment and the Board may, after giving notice to the parties affected thereby and after hearing them, pass such decree or order as the circumstances of the case require."
'The language couched in this section clearly adverts to a review in the manner "A Review". The word "A" is very significant and important and itself clearly signifies a singular form, thus, if read together with "the word a review it clearly indicates that only one review is competent before the Board of Revenue." Had the intention of the legislature been otherwise B the words certainly would have been "Reviews" and not a review. As only one review is competent before the Board of Revenue, and it was duly filed by the petitioner earlier, but was dismissed on 16-5-2007, therefore, a second review on the same subject is not maintainable and was rightly so held by the respondent No,l. This petition thus has no merits and is dismissed.