1. ' KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMED, J.---C.M.A. No,2721/2008.--- This application under section 114, C.P.C.
2. Read with Order XLVII Rule 1, C.P.C. Has been filed by Defendant No,3 through Advocate-General Sindh for review of the order, dated 7-4-2008 as well as order, dated 7-4-2005 mainly on the ground that the order No, PS/MBR/(LU)/264/96, dated 25-2-1996, was issued on the wrong impression and misconception of the then Chief Minister of Sindh. It is further mentioned in the application that the documents were procured fraudulently and entries were effected on fraudulent orders of the then Chief Minister of Sindh.
3. ' This suit was disposed of by order, dated 7-4-2005 by my brother Mr. Justice Amir Hani Muslim.
4. The operative part of the order has been reproduced in paragraph No,7 of the application, which reads as under:-- "Accordingly this suit is disposed of with the directions to the Chairman of the Committee constituted under the Ordinance III of 2001 to process the case of the plaintiff and decide it in accordance with law within six months."
5. ' I had passed an order on 7-4-2008. Office has raised following objections on the review application.
(1) The review application is hopelessly time-barred under Article 162 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
(2) The order, dated 7-4-2005 has not been challenged in appeal or otherwise.
(3) The order, dated 7-4-2008 is an order to implement the order, dated 7-4-2005 which is also hit by limitation.
(4) That on 28-2-2008, the defendant No,3 was debarred and lost right of defence, which has not been agitated in the review application.
(5) The order, dated 7-4-2005 was a consent order, no appeal was filed against it and in furtherance thereof the committee proceeded with the matter. Section 96(3), C.P.C. Envisages that no appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with the consent of the parties. Reference is made to section 36, C.P.C. That all executable orders are decrees.
(6) The application seeking review of both orders, dated 7-4-2005 and 7-4-2008 does not merit has hit by principles of res judicata, since the orders are not challenged and no material has been brought on record.
(7) The material point raised in the review application that the stamp duty on total sale consideration of Rs,1,95,40,900 was not paid.
6. ' On the last date of hearing i,e, 1-9-2008, notice was issued to the parties as well as Advocate- General Sindh to argue that the maintainability of this review application, which is hopelessly time barred. Mr. Adnan A. Karim, learned Assistant Advocate-General, in support of this review application has stated that the then Chief Minister of Sindh did not pass order, dated 13-2-1996 for allowing conversion of the land in question and the order which are annexed with the plaint are fraudulent/manufactured. He has further argued that the plaintiff has filed the suit on the basis of fraudulent documents alleged to have been allowed by the then Chief Minister Sindh. The Advocate for the plaintiff has opposed this review application and has filed written argument on behalf of the plaintiff, which reads as under:-- "(1) The review application is hopelessly time-barred under Article 162 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
(2) This Hon'ble Court passed consent order, dated 7-4-2008, under Article 162 of the Limitation Act, provides 20 days for filing of review of judgment of order, while defendant No,3 filed review application on 14-6-2008, hence the review application is time-barred for 46 days.
7. (2A) The consent order, dated 7-4-2005 has not been challenged in appeal or otherwise by defendant No,3.
(3) The order, dated 7-4-2008 passed by this Hon'ble Court is an order to implement the order, dated 7-4-2005 passed by this Hon'ble Court, which is also hit by limitation.
(4) The order, dated 7-4-2005 passed by this Hon'ble Court was consent order, no appeal was filed against it and in furtherance with the matter. Section 96(3), C.P.C. Envisaged that no appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with the consent of the parties. Reference is made to section 36, C.P.C. That all executable orders and decrees.
(5) That application seeking review of both order, dated 7-4-2005 and 7-4-2008 does not merit and liable to be dismissed, first order, dated 7-4-2005 was not challenged at all second order, dated 7-4-2008, which is the implements order of the first is hopelessly time-barred.
(6) The material point raised in the review application that the stamp duty on total sale consideration of Rs,1,95,40,900 and Government was deprived of stamp duty, in this respect the Hon'ble High Court may kindly peruse sale-deed already marked as Annexure "A" of the plaint, whereby plaintiff paid proper stamp duty and penalty as certified by the sub-registrar on 29-9- 1997.
(7) First time, another point raised in the review application that allottee maneuvered summary forwarded to Chief Minister for conversion of 30 years to 99 years lease and said summary was never placed before the Chief Minister and also signatures of the Chief Minister are forged, in this respect this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to appreciate the following documents:--
(a) While passing order, dated 7-4-2008 by this Hon'ble Court the defendant No,3 filed facts of the case and parawise comments vide letter No,3-22/S0-11, dated 29-3-2008 through A.A.G., whereby it has been clearly mentioned that the then Chief Minister passed orders for put up summary and summary was submitted to the then Chief Minister Sindh. The original summary was not received back from the Chief Minister Sindh. However, photocopies carrying orders under the original signature of the then Chief Minister Sindh, thereon was received.
(b) In this case Sindh NAB vide letter, dated 8-10-2002 required certain details along with documentary proofs from defendant No,3 preferably concerned point No,1 requiring name of authority who allowed this lease. In response defendant No,3 vide his reply, dated 19-11-2002 clearly informed to the NAB Sindh that the then Chief Minister Sindh Syed Abdullah Shah, allowed the conversion as per record.
(c) Refers issue No,22 and decision taken by Sindh Government Land Committee held on 22-7- 2006 by Chairmanship of Justice (R) Wahid Bux Brohi that Mr. Abdul Jabbar Mirza Advocate appeared on behalf of the applicant at the outset the summary on the basis of which the allotment order was issued to the members, and outward register was called and perused by the members and it was noted that the summary for approval of Chief Minister was duly dispatched.
(d) Refers letter, dated 21-4-2007 written by defendant No,3 to Director (IW-I) NAB Karachi wherein it has been clearly mentioned that in spite of our best efforts we could not detect the element of fraud in this case."
8. ' I have heard the learned counsel of the parties as well as have perused the record and document filed by the learned Advocate for the Plaintiff along with his written arguments. The defendant No,3 through his review application is seeking review of the orders, dated 7-4-2005, which was never challenged by the defendant No,3 in appeal and has attained finality. The order, dated 7-4-2005 passed by me is an order to implement order, dated 7-4-2008, which has also not been challenged in appeal and has attained finality. The defendant No,3 who has now filed this review application as per office note was debarred from filing written statement and had lost right of defence which has not been agitated till today. Even this review application is silent about this fact and this fact has only been pointed by the office objection. It is further mentioned in the office objections that order, dated 7-4-2005 which is being sought to be reviewed was a consent order and no appeal has been filed against the said order. Moreover, in the pleadings the defendant No,3 has never taken the plea that the signatures of the then Chief Minister are either forged or have been obtained by fraudulent means. On the contrary they had conceded to it. This plea for the first time has been taken in "Review Application".
9. ' In view of the above I am of the humble opinion that the learned counsel for the defendant No,3 has not been able to make out the case for review of the orders passed on 7-4-2005 and 7-4- 2008. Moreover, the review application is hopelessly time-barred and no application under Limitation Act, 1908 has been filed for condoning the delay, as such Miscellaneous Application bearing No,2721 of 2008, is dismissed with no order as to costs.