1. ORDER.
2. KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMED, J. --- This application under Section 114, C.P.0 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. The operative part of the order has of 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 ill of 2001 to process the case of the Plaintiff and decide it accordance with law within six months."
(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 28.2.2002, 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 filled against it and in furtherance thereof the committee proceeded with the matter. Section 96(3), C.P.C. Envisages that no appeal shall be 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.
4. ( ) The application seeking review of both orders dated 7.4.2005 and 7.4.2008 does not merit has hit by principle 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.
5. 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 about 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 Minster 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 or Order, while defendant No. 3 filed review application on 14.6.2008, hence the review application is time-barred for 46 days.
(2) 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
(5) matter. Section 96(3), C.P.C., envisaged that no appeal shall be 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 perused 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 manured 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 is a forger, 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. 03-22/SO-II, 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 Minster Sindh. However, photocopies carrying orders under the original signature of the then Chief Minister Sindh, thereon was received.
(b) In this case Sindh N.A.B. Vide letter dated 8.10.2002 required certain details alongwith documentary proves 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 N.A.B. Sindh that the then Chief Minster 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) N.A.B. Karachi wherein it has been clearly mentioned that inspite of our best efforts we could not detect the element of fraud in this case." .