' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.--- Petitioner seeks review of judgment, dated 28-4-2004, whereby this Court dismissed his Civil Petition (C.P. No,664 of 2002) and leave was refused.
2. Facts of the case as captulated in the judgment under review, are reproduced below:- "Being accused of committing the murder of one Gulai on 12-2-1950 in village Hari Chand one Mehrban was sought to be arrested, who, however, absconded. He surrendered himself to police custody on 7-7-1953 and was thereafter released on bail. On the commencement of the trial before the learned Sessions Judge at Peshawar the said Mehrban accused was summoned who, however, disappeared. Proceedings were initiated against him under sections 87 and 88 of the Cr.P.C. As a result whereof a direction was made to the Political Agent of Malakand on 1-9-1954 to attach the immovable property of the said Mehrban accused situated in village Kooper, Sakhahot area in Malakand Agency whereupon a piece of land measuring 166 Kanals, 3 Marlas was attached and subsequently sold through an open auction. This piece of land was purchased by Umar Gul, Hazrat Haque and Said Rehman in the said open auction in the year 1957 who were also put into possession of the same.
(2) It may be added that the said Mehrban accused was finally rearrested on 6-6-1957 whereafter he was tried, sentenced to suffer death and was hanged.
(3) The petitioner before us are the sons and heirs of the said Mehrban convict who had filed a suit in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Malakand in February, 1990 seeking a declaration that they were the owners in possession of the above-mentioned auctioned land; that the auction of the said land was illegal and that the auction-purchasers who were predecessor-ininterest of the respondents before us had no connection with the same.
(4) The said suit was dismissed by the learned trial Judge on 24-2-1992 and similar was the fate met by the appeal filed by them which was dismissed on 8-6-1992. The plaintiffs/ petitioners thus, approached the Peshawar High Court through Civil Revision No,350 of 1992 which was, however, allowed as a consequence whereof the matter was remanded back to the learned trial Court for recording additional evidence vis-a-vis new issue framed and then decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.
(5) This Revisional judgment of the learned High Court was questioned before this Court through Civil Appeal No,1654 of 1997 which appeal was disposed of by this Court on 8-12-1997 with the consent of the parties as a result whereof the matter was sent back to the learned High Court for deciding the lis on merits after summoning whatever additional record was, required to be examined for disposal of the revision petition before it. After remand, the learned High Court dismissed the said petition through a judgment dated 22-4-2002."
' Hence this petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record. The learned Deputy Attorney-General adopted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondents.
4. Precisely the same contentions were raised before this Court, when learned counsel argued the civil petition. We find from the judgment under review that the contentions raised by the learned counsel were duly dealt with and decided by this Court in paras.9, 10 and 11 of the judgment under review, which read as under:- "(9) It was rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that the provisions contained in sections 87 to 89, Cr.P.C. Were a complete Code about the matters relating to the attachment and sale of the property belonging to a Proclaimed Person and the restoration thereof.
Mehrban convict did initiate proceedings for the restoration of the attached property after his arrest in the year 1957, which prayer was declined by the then Judicial Commissioner of N.-W.F.P.
And no further proceedings were taken by anyone to pursue the said matter before any higher forum and this matter had thus attained finality. Needless to add that as per provisions of section 89, Cr.P.C. Any attached property which was sold under section 88 of the Cr.P.C. Was not liable for restoration and even if the proclaimed offender had satisfied the competent Court about his ignorance regarding his requirement before a Court of law then only the sale proceeds of the property in question could be offered to him after deducting expenses incurred in the auction of the same which clearly established that the auction or sale of such a property once made was final and could not be undone even when the competent Court was satisfied that the disappearance of the owner of the said property was not intentional.
(10) The only legal issue raised before us by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the property in question was situated in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and the provisions of Cr.P.C. Did not extend to the said territory. This question was examined by the learned High Court and rightly answered in the impugned judgment and no further answer needs to be given to the said submissions. We may, however, add that the provisions of section 88, Cr.P.C. Did not exempt the property situated in the Federal Administered Tribal Areas from the operation of the provisions of the said section 88, Cr.P.C. And moreso when the Federally Administered Tribal Areas were a part and parcel of the territories comprising the State of Pakistan in terms of Article 1(1) of the Constitution.
(11) Thus looking at the matter from whatever angle i,e, be it a question of limitation; be it a question of the finality attached to the auction/sale under section 88, Cr.P.C. Or the fact that the ones who had purchased the property in an auction held under the orders of a competent Court were bona fide purchasers of the same for valuable consideration, no exception could be taken to the consistent findings of the three learned Courts which are being questioned before us."
' The petitioner cannot be allowed to reopen the case under the umbrella of review petition and his learned counsel cannot be permitted to reargue the case. Reference can be made to Mst. Kabir- un-Nisa and another v. Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Lahore and 3 other 1975 SCM R 493. This Court after taking into consideration every aspect of the case and taking conscious and deliberate decision on points of facts and law dismissed petitioner's civil petition. Neither there is any mistake or error apparent on the face of record nor discovery of a new and important matter or evidence, which is sine qua non for exercise of review jurisdiction of this Court. In this behalf reference can be made to Abdul Ghaffar-Abdul Rehman and others v. Asghar Ali and others PLD 1998 SC 363, Mian Rafiq Saigol and another v. Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd. And another PLD 1997 SC 865, Mst. Kalsoom Malik v. Assistant Commissioner 1996 SCM R 710 and Daewoo Corporation v. Zila Council Jhang 2004 SCM R 1213.
5. For what has been discussed above, we do not find any merit in the instant petition, which is accordingly dismissed and review is declined.
' C.M.A. No,2696 of 2004
6. Instant application has been filed on behalf of legal heirs of Said Rehman (respondent No,3), seeking following relief:-- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that on acceptance of this application, the names of said two gentlemen Umar Gul and Hazrat Haque may kindly be omitted/deleted from line 4 on page 2 of the judgment and the same be corrected accordingly."
7. Learned counsel stated that only Said Rehman, predecessor-ininterest of applicants, purchased the land in an open auction and he was put in possession, but in lines 4 to 6 at page 2 of the judgment, dated 28-4-2004, passed by this Court in the case of Habib-ul-Haque alias Ajar v. Umer Gul (deceased) through his L.Rs, Mst. Umtul Khair and others (Civil Petition No,664 of 2002)", it has been noted that piece of land was purchased by Umar Gul, Hazrat Haque and Said Rehman in an open auction which is factually incorrect.
8. Having heard learned counsel, we would like to know the view point of Umar Gul and Hazrat Haque. Office is, therefore, directed to issue notice to the said respondents for a date in the 1st week of December, 2008.