1. SARDAR ABDUL HAMEED KHAN, J.--- The above titled review petition has been filed against the judgment of this Court dated 4-2-1999.
2. Brief facts forming background of the instant review petition are that petitioner was serving as officer Grade-2 under the control of non-petitioner No.5, meanwhile, a scheme known as retrenchment was introduced by non-petitioner No.1 in the consequences, petitioner who was promoted recently in Grade-2, after that he got received retrenchment letter through non- petitioner No.5 on 10-10-1997 and thereafter was terminated from the service. It is averred that the termination order dated 10-10-1997 was challenged by the petitioner and others through above captioned writ petition which was dismissed on the sole ground that section 2-A has been introduced in Service Tribunals Act, 1973 which has been adopted by AJK Council therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter and petitioners were directed to approach the appropriate forum, consequently, service appeal was filed before the Federal Service Tribunal Islamabad which was dismissed on 23-8-1999. Then preferred appeal before Supreme Court Pakistan which also failed in the light of judgment of Supreme Court Pakistan dated 28-11-2006, the copy of which was delivered to the petitioner on 8-12-2006, para '7' of the writ petition is relevant which is as under:--- "7. That it has been held in the judgment dated 28-11-2006, that appeal has become infructuous in the light of judgment of June, 2006 wherein it was directed that as non-petitioner bank has been sold to private sector, even otherwise section 2A of Services Tribunals Act was struck down and litigants were directed to approach appropriate forum, the appeal was dismissed on 28-11-2006 and copy was issued on 8-12-2006 therefore, time granted by the honourable Supreme Court for approaching the Appropriate forum if calculated this review petition is within time."
3. In the light of above said order of the Supreme Court Pakistan the petitioner has filed instant Review Petition for review of the supra order of this Court.
4. Mr. Muhammad Riaz Tabbassum, the learned counsel for the petitioner while advancing pre- admission argument vehemently contended that from the date of delivery of copy of the above said order the petition has been filed within 90 days which is well within time and even otherwise the delay has been caused by operation of law, which is sufficient cause and prayed for condonation of delay and sought disposal of the review petition on merit. While arguing on merits the learned counsel contended that the case of the petitioner is fully covered under. Order XLVII, rule (1) of C.P.C. And contended that in the light of direction of Supreme Court Pakistan, that the bank has been privatized and the petitioners should approach the proper forum, the case of the petitioner warrants acceptance on merit too.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and gone through the record of the case.
6. The argument of the learned counsel that the petition has been filed within 90 days is within time is misconceived hence, repelled. The law governing the limitation for the review of a judgment is laid down in rule 43(4) of AJ&K High Court Procedure Rules, 1984 read with Order XLVII, Rule (1) of C.P.C.
7. And under Articles 162 and 173 of Limitation Act, 1908. These provisions are reproduced hereunder for convenience:-- Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984.
8. "Application for review of Judgment: 43(1). The Court may review its judgment or order but no application for review shall be entertained except on the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule I of the Code.
(2) xxxxxxx
(3) xxxxxxx
(4) An application for review shall be filed before the Deputy Registrar within thirty days after the judgment is delivered in the appeal, cause or mater unless the Court for sufficient cause condones the delay beyond 30 days.
(5) xxxxxxx."
9. ORDER XLVII, Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure:---
1. Application for review of judgment.
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved--
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the receipt, or for any order sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party where the ground of such appeal is common the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he case on which he applies for the review.
10. Article 162 of Limitation Act.
11. Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run 162 For review of judgment by High Court in the exercise of its original jurisdictionTwenty days The date of the decree or order Article 173 of Limitation Act. Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run 173 For a review of judgment except in the cases provided for by Article 161 and Article 162Ninety days The date of the decree or order In the light of above legal provisions it is crystal clear that the order sought to be reviewed has been passed in original/constitutional jurisdiction of this Court for which the period of limitation for filing a review petition is 20 days as laid down in Article 162 and not under Article 173 of Limitation Act, 1908, furthermore, under rule 43(4) ibid the limitation is 30 days hence the petition is hopelessly time-barred.
12. Keeping in view the provision of Order XLVII, rule (1), C.P.C. After going through the record of the case it is firm view of the Court that case of the petitioner is not covered under the definition of sufficient cause. Moreover, the petitioner has not chosen the proper forum as indicated by the apex Court of Pakistan. Furthermore, nothing is spelt out from the record for review of the Court order under question.
13. In the light of what has been stated above, finding no force in this petition. The same is dismissed being time barred as well as on merits. No order as to costs.