DORAB PATEL, J.-The petitioner dad field a petition for leave against an order of the Lahore High Court dated 1 1-10-1973 dismissing in limine his writ petition on the ground that it was barred by res- judicata.
2. The petition for leave was time-barred by 166 days and the explan--ation for the delay was that the petitioner was ill. Reliance was placed on a medical certificate by one Dr. Basharat which was completely vague and it referred to Herniplagia, an ailment which learned counsel could not explain despite our enquiry, and, we had dismissed the petition on 2-3-1976, on the ground that it was time-barred. The petitioner then filed an application for the review of our order and the review is pressed on the basis ofsecond medicinal certificate by Dr. Basharat in' which the Doctor has explained that Hemiplagia means paralysis. Now, it was for tine petitioner arid his learned counsel to explain the petitioner's ailness and we do not see how a. Review can be allowed on a certificate which could have been, but was not produced at the date of the impugned order. But whatever be the position if the matter had stood here, if the petitioner had really suffered from paralysis, it is impossible for us to believe that his learned counsel would not have known what the petitioner's ailment was, yet on 2-3-1976, the petitioner's learned counsel was unable to tell us what the petitioner's ailment had been. Therefore, we agree with Mr. Sirajul Haq, learned counsel for the caveat ions that the medical certificates relied upon by the petitioner do not inspire confidence, and the petition for leave was rightly dismissed.
3. However, by this Court's order of 16-12-1978, petitioner's learned counsel had been directed to be prepared with question of limitation as well as the merits of the case". Now, in the judgment challenged by the petitioner in his petition for leave. The learned Judge of the High Court had observed that the petitioner had "approached this Court once before by means of W. P. 838/R of 1965 which was dismissed . . . . . ." Therefore, the learned Judge dismissed the second writ petition of the petitioner on the ground of res judicata with the further observation that an allegation of fraud had been introduced into the second writ petition merely to get the matter reopened and is without any substance".
4. Now, it was for the petitioner to prove an error of law in these obser--vations and we invited the learned counsel to refer us to a copy of the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner and the judgment of the High Court dis--missing that earlier writ petition. Although this review has come up two years after our order of 2-3-1976, and although the petitioner has obtained an adjournment, learned counsel did not have a copy of the earlier writ peti--tion or a copy of the judgment dismissing that writ petition. Therefore, it is impossible for him to show any error in the impugned judgment. Con--fronted with this difficulty, learned counsel asked for an adjournment and wanted us to summon the record. The review application has come up for hearing more than two years after the dismissal of his petition for leave an the petitioner had obtained an ad interim order in his favour, therefore, the request for an adjournment was opposed by Mr. Sirajul Haq, who furthe submitted that a review could not be entertained by summoning the record, if the record had not been summoned on 2-3-1976. The record was no summond on 2-3-1976 and Mr. Sirajul Haq's submissions are correct. In any view of the matter, therefore, the review petition is not fit to be entertained and is dismissed.