' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.--- These appeals by leave of this Court have been filed against the judgments dated 7-2-2008 and 4-6-2008 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed in Writ Petition No, 2016 of 2007 and in Review Petition No,8 of 2008.
' Civil Appeal No,753 of 2008:
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the Controller/Civil Judge directed the ejectment of the appellant on 28th March 2007. Appeal against this order has been dismissed by District Judge, Mardan on 5th October, 2007. Writ Petition was filed before the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar which was also dismissed on 7th February 2008, against which petition for leave to appeal bearing No, 147 of 2008 was filed. Against the judgment of the High Court, review was also filed on 23rd February, 2008 which was also been dismissed on 4th June, 2008. This order has also been challenged by filing the petition for leave to appeal. An application has also been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing of petition against the impugned judgment dated 7th February, 2008 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar wherein prayer has been made that time spent in the review proceedings may be excluded in computing the period of filing of the petition. Leave to appeal has been granted by this Court on 5-8-2008, which is reproduced hereinbelow:--- "The learned Advocate-on-Record submitted, inter alia, that there was no evidence to show relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that the petitioner was in occupation of the suit property being father of the alleged vendor and not as tenant.
(2) Leave to appeal is granted to consider the above and other submissions. Question of limitation shall be decided along with the main appeal. Since short points are involved, the office is directed to fix both these appeals for final hearing, on the present record, within a period of one year.
Meanwhile, subject to notice, status-quo shall be maintained qua the property in dispute."
3. As the question of limitation was one of the important questions to decide the fate of these appeals, we will deal with the same first.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that as the appellant was not heard by the High Court, therefore, to bring this fact into the notice of the learned High Court, a review petition was filed and the remedy was being availed with due deligence as such benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act may be extended to the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the condonation of delay on the ground that under section 14, that time spent in the review cannot be excluded.
6. We have heard both the side and have gone through the judgment of the Peshawar High as well as the judgment passed Court in the dated 7th February, review of 4th June, 2008. Admittedly, the petition for leave to appeal is barred by time. The question for consideration before us is as to whether in such like situation time spent in the review proceedings can be excluded for the purpose for computing the limitation for filing of the petition for leave to appeal. On this behalf it is to be noted that under the Supreme Court Rules 1980, there is no such provision whereby on the basis of proceedings in which time has been spent, delay cannot be condoned and the law laid down by this Court is very much clear on the point. Reference may be made to the cases of Ghulam Nabi and 5 others v. Rashid, PLD 2000 SC 63, Sarwar Khan v. Mehran Bib and others 2005 SCM R 521 and Abdul Majid and other v. Mst. Zubeda Begum and others 2007 SCM R 866.
7. On having gone through the dictum laid down in the judgment which have also been taken into consideration the law laid down on this subject in the earlier cases reported as Ghulam Hussain and another v. Kanwar Ashiq Ali Khan and another PLD 1980 SC 198 and Pir Muhammad v. Education Town Co-operative Society Ltd., Lahore 1982 SCM R 995. We are of the opinion that under the circumstances, the time cannot be excluded, therefore, the petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 7th February, 2008 is hopelessly time-barred as in such like situation cannot be condoned.
' Civil Appeal 754 of 2008:
8. Now turning towards the second judgment which has been challenged arising out of the review proceedings dated 4th June, 2008, it is to be noted that if the appeal,is not maintainable against the original order then no relief can be given by examining the order which has been passed in the review proceedings.
9. It is important to note that as far as the High Court is concerned, it has also dismissed the review petition and maintained the original order dated 7th February, 2008. Thus these appeals have no force.
10. For the foregoing reasons, we see no force in these appeals which are dismissed with costs of Rs,5,000 in each case.