1. ' GHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, J.---The applicant/appellant by filing this Review application under section 114 readwith Order XLVII, C.P.C, has prayed for setting aside the order dated 24-7-2009 passed by this Court.
2. ' The brief facts necessary for disposal of this review application are that the appeal filed by the applicant-appellant against the order dated 19-4-2005 and 25-6-2005 passed by Senior Civil Judge-I, Quetta was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution on 11-4-2008, thereafter, the applicant-appellant filed an application for recalling of the order dated 11-4-2008 and restoration of appeal on 23-4-2009, on the ground that similar application was filed in the office of this court on 5-5-2008 had been misplaced, therefore, second application was filed after delay of about one year, however; on Court quarry and demand the learned counsel had also failed to produce the carbon copy of said application, thus the application filed by the applicant-appellant was dismissed vide order dated 24-7-2009, hence; this review application.
3. ' Mr. Muhammad Rauf Hashmi, learned counsel for applicant contended that; the ground on the basis of which application was dismissed was that same has been filed beyond the limitation prescribed, under the law. In the present case Article 181 of Limitation Act is applicable, as the matter was fixed for formal proceedings and period of limitation prescribed in the present situation is three years, therefore, order passed by this Court is liable to be reviewed and set aside.
4. ' I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and have also gone through the record.
5. The appeal was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution on 11-4-2008. Thereafter the applicant filed an application for restoration of appeal on 23-4-2009 without filing any application for condonation of delay; consequently, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 24-7- 2009. Then after eight and half months of that order the present Review application under section 114 read with Order XLVII, C.P.C. Was filed.
6. ' It is well settled by now that a review application is not competent where neither any new and important matter or evidence has been disclosed nor is any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. In the instant case neither there is any mistake or error apparent on the face of record nor discovery of a new and important matter or evidence. The applicant has failed to make out a case for review of the impugned order. In this behalf reference can be made to Mst. Kabir- unNisa and another v. Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Lahore and 3 others (1975 SCM R 493), 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 Liak , and others v Assistant Commissioner and others (1996 SCM R 710).
7. ' Thus, in view of the above, I do not find any merit in this review application and the same is dismissed in limine, with no order as to costs.