1. ' NAIMUDDIN, J.-This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the order dated 7th June, 1977, passed by Mr. Muhammad Bachal G. Memon, Deputy Commissioner, Tharparkar, respondent No. 1, on a review application filed by respondent No, 2 against the order dated 6th April, 1976, passed by the predecessor of respondent' No. 1 whereby he rejected the revision application filed by respondent No, 2.
2. ' We may very briefly state the facts giving rise to this petition which are as follows:- . Respondent No, 2 had purchased the lands bearing Survey Nos. 26, 27, 36 and 68 in all measuring 17-4 acres, situated at Deh 95, Taluka Mirpurkhas from Noorul Hassan under a registered sale deed dated 14th January, 1974. The petitioner preferred an application under th Pre-emption Rules before the Mukhtiarkar and Tenancy Tribunal, Mirpurkhas claiming that he was a 'hart' of the above lands and had the first choice to purchase the lands. His application was rejected by Mukhtiarkar on the ground that at the time of the sale one Gianah was `bare' of the lands in question. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Mirpurkhas but failed.
3. He, therefore, went up in revision before the Deputy Commissioner who remanded the case to Mukhtiarkar for fresh decision after spot enquiry as to who was the `hart' at the relevant time. The Mukhtiarkar, Mirpurkhas on remand, after spot enquiry declared the petitioner as tenant of Survey Nos. 36/8 and 9, 37/7 and 11 and 63/3 and 5, by his order dated 2nd September, 1975. Respondent No, 2 dissatisfied with the order preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissiener, Mirpurkhas which was rejected by him. He then filed a revision application before the Deputy Commis- B sioner which was also rejected by the order dated 6th April 1976. Thi order on a review application filed by respondent No, 2 was set aside by respondent No. 1 by the order now impugned before us.
4. ' It is not disputed that respondent No, I had under the relevant statute no power to review the earlier order passed by his predecessor. The power of review like the power to sit in appeal, is a creation of statute. If any authority is needed we may refer to Hussain Shaikh v. Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi and others (I) wherein M. R. Khan, J. Relying on the observation by Branwell, L. J., in the case of Sand-back Charity Trustees v. North Staffordshir Railway Co. (2) observed that right to claim review of any decision of Court of law, like the right to appeal is a substantive right and not a mere matter of procedure. The Supreme Court decision was followed by Aftab Hussain, J. In Agha Muhammad Hassan v. Mehraj Din (3) which was an appeal arising under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, wherein at page 100 observed as follows :- "The power of review is vested in a Civil Court under section 114 and Order XLVII, rule 1, C. P. C. But there is no corresponding {{FOOT NOTE}}
(I) P D 1970 SC 1 (2) (1877) 3QBD1 (3) PLD 1973 Leh. 95 {{FOOT NOTE}} provision in the above Ordinance empowering any Rent Controller or the appellate authority to review its own orders. Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code have been applied by this Ordinance to an appeal before the High Court by the explanation does not apply to an appeal under subsection (4) of section 15, but this explanation does not apply to an appeal under subsection (3) of section 15 as held in Begun: Humayun Zulfigar Ismail and another v. Hamida Saadat Ali 1968 SCMR 828. It was held in the above case that 'the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have not been made applicable to an appeal under subsection (3) as has been done in the case of an appeal to the High Court, subsection (4) is a complete code of procedure in itself for the purposes of an appeal under that subsection' Order XLI, rule 11 empowering a Court to dismiss an appeal in limine was not held applicable to an appellate authority. The provisions of section 114 and Order XLVII, rule 1 cannot therefore, be extended to an appellate Court under subsection (3) of section 15 of the above Ordinance."'
5. ' The learned Judge further observed at page 101 of the report as follows :-- "Section 15 is not only exhaustive of the procedure of appeal provided therein, but also exhaustive of the manners in which an order of a Rent Controller or an order of an appellate authority can be challenged. It does not confer a right of review, which like the right of an appeal, is a substantive right and does dot exist except where it is expressly conferred by law."
6. ' Since the relevant statute does not provide power of review, therefore, the order dated 1st June; 1977, cannot be sustained. We, therefore, declare the order impugned in this petition to have been passed without lawful authority and is therefore, of no legal effect.
7. Mr. Sadiq Ali requests that' the petitioner may be allowed some time as his crops of cotton are standing on the lands mentioned above. D If it is so, it will be open to respondent No, 2 to take such action as is permitted by law. But we cannot grant this request in these proceedings.
8. ' Mr. Sadiq Ali further submits that alienation originally made in favour of the petitioner was void.
9. This question relates to the merits of the case which we cannot go into in this petition where the Only question involved was whether respondent No. 1 had power to review an earlier order passed on revision application regarding which we have already come to the conclusion that he had no such powers.
10. ' Accordingly, the petitioner succeeds as mentioned above. However, we may leave the parties under the circumstances, to bear their own costs.