' Through the instant review application the order passed by this Court dated 9-5-2012 in W.P.
No,26003 of 2010 has been sought to be reviewed.
2. The review application has been instituted on 16-11-2012. The limitation prescribed for filing of a review application against the order passed by the Court in exercise of its original jurisdiction is twenty days from the date of the decree or order as per Article 162 of First Schedule of Limitation Act, 1908. The petitioner in para-5 of the review application has also stated that a CPLA No,1342-L of 2012 has also been filed against the order/judgment dated 9-5-201.2 passed by this Court which CPLA according to the contents of para.5 of the review application has not so far been fixed for hearing. The learned counsel for the petitioner has been confronted with the proposition that how the instant review application is within time keeping in view Article 162 of First Schedule of Limitation Act, 1908.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Article 162 does not apply to the instant case as the judgment/order passed by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction is not passed while exercising the original jurisdiction vested in it. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as the proceedings resulting into filing of writ petition emanate from the suit decided by the learned Judge Family Court and the appeal decided by the learned Additional District Judge therefore the writ petition decided through the judgment/order dated 9-5-2012 by this Court cannot be said to be the result of exercise of original jurisdiction by this Court. The learned counsel contends that it is because of this aspect that the petitioner although submitted an application for condonation of delay but was not got numbered from the office- as the review application instituted by the petitioner is within the prescribed limitation of ninety days as per Article 173 of First Schedule of Limitation Act 1908.
4. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. The concept of original jurisdiction as envisaged and stated in Article 162 of First Schedule of Limitation Act 1908 does not make any classification between the writ petitions instituted in this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 arising out of the proceedings of a -civil suit or filed against some order independent of any civil suit proceedings. The concept of original jurisdiction as envisaged by Article 162 of First Schedule of Limitation Act, 1908 is with reference to the first forum available under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 for entertainment of a petition and passing of an order as visualized under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The concept of original jurisdiction used in Article 162 of First Schedule of Limitation Act 1908 is in contrast to the exercise of appellate and revisional jurisdiction by the High Court.
6. It is further elaborated that the forum of the High Court for entertainment of the writ petitions has been created by the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 under its Article 199 therefore when the High Court entertains a writ petition against any order whether judicial or administrative, it entertains the same in exercise of its original jurisdiction which is conferred upon the High Court through the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the order assailed in W.P. No,26003 of 2010 was result of the proceedings undertaken by the learned Judge Family Court and then by the appellate court under the Family Courts Act 1964 therefore the writ petition as filed against the order assailed in the writ petition in the instant matter will not be covered under Article 162 of First Schedule of Limitation Act 1908 has no substance and is repelled.
7. In view of the above the instant review application is hopelessly barred by time and is therefore dismissed in limine.
Review dismissed.