1. FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, J.-The facts giving rise to this petition are that a revision petition filed by the petitioners was posted for hearing before- a learned Single Judge in the Lahore High Court on 9-4-1975 but it was adjourned to 11-4-1975 for want of time. The petitioners did not appear on that date -and the revision petition was dismissed. This revision was directed against an order made by the trial Court refusing to restore the petitioners' pre-emption suit dismissed for default on the ground that restora--tion application was barred by time. An Additional District Judge bad affirmed that order in appeal.
2. While dismissing the petitioners' revision, the High Court also affirmed the view that the petitioners' application for setting aside the order dismissing the suit, was barred by time. The petitioners then filed a review application in the High Court presumably to set aside the order dated 11-4-1975 on the ground that there was sufficient cause for their absence. They also sought to re-agitate the question that their application under Order IX, rule 2 for restoration of the suit was not barred by time. This review application was dismissed on 22-5-1975.
3. The present leave petition was filed on 7-8-1975 and it is, therefore, obvious that in so far as the order dated 11.4-1975 is concerned, it is barred by time. The sole question, therefore, for consideration in this petition is whether the High Court was right in dismissing the review application vide its order dated 22-5-1975. This review application, in fact, sought the restoration of the petitioners' revision petition dismissed in default by the High Court on 11-4-1975 and, therefore, the petitioners had to demonstrate that they had sufficient cause for their non-appearance on 11- 4-1975. The only cause mentioned for non-appearance on 11-4-1975 is that though the revision petition was fixed for hearing on 9-4-1975 and not taken up on that date was adjourned to 11-4- 1975, the petitioners' counsel took it for granted that the case had been adjourned to the next week and not to 11-4-1975. We cannot regard this as sufficient cause for the petitioner absence on 11-4- 1975. Even if the review application is not regarded as limited to one seeking restoration of the revision petition dismissed on 11-4-1975, we find from the review application as well as the order made in review that the petitioners had in fact attempted to re-argue the revision, which was not permissible under Order XLV11, rule 1, C. P. C. In either event the petitioners cannot be said to have any grievance.
4. This petition is therefore, dismissed.