This petition for review calls in question the legality of order dated 4-6-1980 passed in W. P.
1130/R/75 by this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Mr. Arif Iqbal Hussain Bhatti, Advocate was legal advisor of the Evacuee Trust Property Board and counsel for respondent No. 2 in the above- referred writ petition. It was stated that he was removed and was no more legal advisor of respon- -dent No. 2 when the impugned order was passed by this Court. Learned Advocate did not inform the respondent No. 2 about the fixation of case, and it was on that account that the case had gone by default, as none put up appearance in the Court on the day the case was heard and decided.
He relied on an affidavit from by Arif Iqbal Hussain Bhatti, Advocate, wherein it was mentioned that i-: -vas removed from the legal advisor ship in 1978, and that his clerk informed the Reader of this Court on 17-5-1980 that respondent No. 2 be informed directly about the case. The case again came up for hearing on 24-5-1980 when again Reader was informed that a notice be sent to respondent No. 2. Then lastly the case was fixed for hearing on 31-5-1980 when both learned counsel as well as his clerk contacted the Reader of the Court and requested him that respondent No. 2 be served with a notice so that a proper representation be made on behalf of respondent No. 2.
3. Learned counsel submitted that respondent No. 2's non-appearance was not deliberate but under the circumstances explained above.
It was submitted that the impugned order dated 31-8-1975 of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner Gujrat was illegal because he had no jurisdiction to confirm the allotment of the land in dispute made prior to June, 1964 as envisaged under section 10 (1) of the Ordinance XVI of 1974. It was stated that there was enough material to prove that the property to dispute was Evacuee Trust Property and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order in respect thereto. It was lastly submitted that that order was obtained by misrepresentation and fraud.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that Mr. Arif Iqbal Hussain Bhatti, Advocate remained a duly authorised counsel on behalf of respondent No. 2 and he had acted with gross negli--gence by not moving an application in the Court for his withdrawal from the case on behalf of respondent No. 2 nor respondent No. 2 made any effort to appoint his substitute to appear in Court in this case on his behalf. It was submitted that even if it was believed that learned counsel informed the Reader of the Court that he was no more legal advisor of respondent No. 2, it did not absolve him from his obligation to inform the Court directly or move an application intimating that be was not to act as counsel in the case. It was submitted that the Court was not supposed to act on the information conveyed to the Reader of the Court by learned counsel. Regarding other submissions, learned counsel pointed out that this was hardly a ground for review of the order passed in writ petition because the Deputy Settlement Commissioner did not exercise power under section 10 (I) of Ordinance XVI of 1974. It was submitted that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in the last paragraph of the impugned order made only an observation that as the land in dispute was utilised under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement Act) prior to 1964 against verified claim, therefore, the land could not be treated as Evacuee Trust Property. It was also submitted that this petition was filed beyond time and the grounds mentioned therein were hardly valid grounds to review the impugned judgment.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents on the file. Undoubtedly neither Mr. Arif Iqbal Hussain Bhatti, Advocate learned counsel for respon--dent No. 2 nor respondent No. 2 brought to the notice of this Court in writing that the learned Advocate was no more counsel on behalf of respondent No. 2. After the removal of learned Advocate as legal advisor of respondent No. 2, it was necessary for respondent No. 2 to have appointed or engaged some counsel to conduct the case in the Court. There is contributory negligence on the part of the learned counsel, as well as respondent No.2 and the explanation given is far from being satisfactory.
As regards the other point that the property in dispute was Evacuee Trust Property and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner bad no jurisdiction to transfer the same or a part thereof, suffice it to say that respondent No.2 after having learnt the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner did not assail the same by independent writ petition or otherwise, as such, no relief can be granted to the review petitioner being only respondent in the writ petition.
However, if the respondent No. 2 as alleged on his behalf has documentary proof although not produced before this Court to establish conclusively, that the disputed property was Evacuee Trust Property and not transferable or transferred by practising fraud may seek relief before appro-- priate Court of plenary jurisdiction, if otherwise not hit by bar of limitation. No patent error on the record or apparent illegality was pointed out justifying review of the impugned judgment.
6. For reasons recorded above, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.