1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-While seeking review of our judgment dated 27-10-1981 in Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1973, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioner's Advocate-on-Record, was present on 27-10-1981 when the appeal was decided; but according to him, (the Advocate-on-Record) the case was not "called". During his presence. That is why the appeal could not be argued from the petitioners' side on merits. He also contended that although the learned Advocate who was to argue the appeal from the petitioners' side was not present at the relevant time, he had reached the Court, soon thereafter. We have perused the affidavit submitted by the learned A. O. R. It is stated in para. 3 thereof that "the case was not called during this period nor was the deponent called upon to appear and defend the appeal.
2. If the learned A. O. R. Meant by the afore quoted assertion that the case was not called out by pronouncemet of the names of the parties outside the Court that might be correct, because in the presence of parties, A. O. R., it is not necessary to go through this exercise, because, according to the practice, as soon as the case is called out by the Court Associate in the court-room, the A. O. R.
3. Counsel signify their presence. If, on the other hand, the learned A. O. R., meant that the case was not called out in Court by the Court Associate, we would not accept this supposition nor has indeed this been urged Our Minute Books of that date show that the case was duly taken up and the learned counsel for the respondents' side cited case-law. The other assumption made in para. 3 of the affidavit of the learned A. O. R.; namely, that he would have defended the appeal only upon being called upon by the Court to do so, is, to say the least, naive. If tie wanted to argue the appeal himself instead of the learned counsel, who was to argue the matter, they should have then stated so. And, in fact it has not even now been asserted during the arguments in support of this review petition that the A. O. R. Himself was to argue the matter. If the A. O. R., did not argue the matter, he is himself responsible for the same.
4. The circumstance that the learned counsel, who was to argue the appeal arrived subsequent to the decision of the appeal will not in any case show that the judgment under review merits reconsideration in review.
5. After hearing the learned counsel we do not consider it fit and necessary to admit this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.