MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner seeks review of the order dated 18.02.2015 whereby, Writ Petition No.5059/2010 filed by the petitioner had been dismissed.
2. Irrespective of the merits of the case, it has been observed by this court that the order under review was passed by learned Single Judge in chamber on 18.02.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an Intra Court Appeal (I.C.A. No.588/2015) before a Division Bench of this Court on 28.04.2015, the same was however, withdrawn on 29.03.2017 with the following order:-- "Learned counsel for the Appellant seeks permission to withdraw this ICA in order to file review application before the proper forum. Allowed.
2. Dismissed as withdrawn."
Thereafter, on 12.04.2017 the instant review petition was filed by the petitioner. The legal position is very much clear that under section 162 of the Limitation Act, the time period provided for filing a review petition is 20 days, whereas, the instant review petition has been filed apparently after two years of the passing of the original order.
Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to argue that ICA was withdrawn with explicit permission by the learned Division Bench to file a review, as such, the time consumed in the pendency of ICA is required to be excluded in counting the time for filing of instant review, but I am afraid the said contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is not backed by law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case "Ahmad Jan and others v. Qazi Azizul Haq and others" (2009 SCMR 1022) in almost identical situation held that:- "Admittedly, Writ Petition No.2075 of 2005 was dismissed on 23-2-2006 but the respondents did not file any Intra-Court Appeal or petition for leave to appeal before this Court against the said judgment which attained finality. Afterwards, they filed another Writ Petition No.544 of 2006 challenging the same order which was not maintainable in view of the Explanation IV to section 11 read with Order II, rule 2 of C.P.C., therefore, the same was dismissed as withdrawn, on 12-10-2006, with permission to file review petition in the previous Writ Petition No.2075 of 2005. The respondents filed the review petition in the month of October 4, 2006 after lapse of more than 8 months from the judgment, dated 23-2-2006. It is settled by now that when a petition is dismissed by the High Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, the application for review is governed by the provisions of Article 162 of the Limitation Act, which provides that a review application can be filed within 20 days from the date of the order or judgment. Apparently the review application has been filed beyond the period of limitation; hence, the same was hopelessly barred by time....
Even otherwise, at the time of dismissal of Writ Petition No.533 of 2006 the respondent No.1 neither requested for condonation of delay in filing of review petition nor the Court condoned the delay, therefore, simple permission to file the review petition cannot condone the delay."
In another case "Trading Corporation of Pakistan v. Devan Sugar Mills Limited and others" (PLD 2018 Supreme Court 828), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held that:- The moment suitor intends to commence any legal action to enforce any right and or invoke a remedy to set right a wrong or to vindicate an injury, he has to elect and or choose from amongst host of actions or remedies available under the law. The choice to initiate and pursue one out of host of available concurrent or co-existent proceedings/actions or remedy from a forum of competent jurisdiction vest with the suitor. Once choice is exercised and election is made then a suitor is prohibited from launching another proceeding to seek a relief or remedy contrary to what could be claimed and or achieved by adopting other proceeding/ action and or remedy, which in legal parlance is recognized as doctrine of election, which doctrine is culled by the courts of law from the well-recognized principles of waiver and or abandonment of a known right, claim, privilege or relief....
From the above two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, there hardly remains any doubt that once the petitioner had himself chosen a forum (Intra Court Appeal), then simple withdrawal from such forum without specifically seeking permission for condonation of time consumed in such proceedings and then adopting another mode (Review Petition) against the same order, is a practice not recognized in law. In another case reported in 2002 PLC (C.S.) 960, it has been held that fault in approaching the wrong forum for redressal of the grievances would not at all be a reasonable cause to condone the delay. The litigants cannot be permitted to adopt forums at their will, as if such practice is allowed to develop, then there will be no end to any litigation and the parties may be playing mockery with the process of law. Consequently, the instant review petition being clearly barred by time is dismissed.