Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, J. After condoning the period of limitation (as under), we heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have gone through the impugned order , the record of the case and the law on the subject. W e find that no ground for review of the impugned order dated 01.08.2019 is made out.
2. We have also noticed that one of the grounds for review is that the order under review is without any reason. The order passed by this Court on 01.08.2019 was as under:- "We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and have gone through the impugned judgment of the High Court, the record of the case and the law on the subject. We have not been able to take any exception to the reasoning of the impugned judgment and are of the view that it does not warrant any interference.
Leave is, therefore, declined and these petitions are dismissed."
It is emphasised that if this Court, having examined the judgment challenged before it, is satisfied with its reasoning and conclusions and is of the view that it does not call for any interference, this Court can simply endorse the impugned judgment and adopt the reason ing of the court below . In such a case, re-tracing the same path travelled by the court below appears to be an unnecessary exercise and a waste of public time - time which can be allocated to other cases where the decisions of the courts below have been overturned or modified. Finding no reversible error in the judgment, a concise, simple order can suffice. On the other hand, if the Court is to reverse or modify the judgment of the court below , the reasons for the reversal or modification must be set forth.
3. This approach adopted by the court, is by no means a short-cut which is offensive to fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution nor does it in any manner undermine due process and fair-p lay. It is simply a creative way forward that spares the Court from writing opinions where a mere adoption of a well-reasoned judgement of the court below through a short order serves the purpose adequately .1
4. Nothing is cast in stone. Old practices evolve with changing times. Burgeoning population and the corresponding rapid increase in litigation require imagin ative solutions. Courts all over the world have moved on to efficient time and case management techniques. Therefore this ground for review is absolutely misconceived.
5. As no ground for review is made out, these civil review petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
C.M.A.Nos. 2831-L/2019 and 3746-L of 2019)
6. These are applications for condonation of delay in filing the titled civil review petitions. For the reasons given in the said applications, the same are allowed. See: Appellate Opinion W riting, Federal Judicial Center , US (FJC-ETS-77-4)