1. ' M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-Both these petitions arise out of an urban settlement case. Murad Ali respondent No, 4, filed a writ petition which was allowed by the High Court on 19-5-1976. The case was remanded to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The petitioner although claiming to be a transferee of the property with subsisting right, was not impleaded as a respondent in the High Court. Muhammad Sharif (her brother) a transferee of a part of property from her was, however impleaded as respondent. He sought the review of the order of remand order by the High Court but failed on 10-6-1976. The petitioner filed an independent belated review petition on 17-11-1976. It was dismissed as time-barred. The petitioner's plea of ignorance about the remand order was not accepted.
2. Civil Petition No, 105/77 is against the order (dated 18-11-1976) of dismissal of petitioner's review application. It was dismissed as time-barred A and also for the reasons that in the meanwhile after remand by the High Court, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed a fresh order. Both the grounds are unexceptionable. We find no justification for interference. This Petition is dismissed.
3. ' The other Petition (C. P. No, 52/77) has been filed against the original order of the High Court dated 19-5-1976, whereby Murad Ali's writ petition was allowed and case remanded. This is barred by time. Even if, the period spent in pursuing the review petition is excluded under the principle of section 14 of the Limitation Act, the petition would still remain badly time-barred and is liable to be dismissed.
4. ' There is another aspect, in both these matters. After remand the order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 20-8-1976, was challenged by the petitioner by a writ petition in the High Court and it was allowed on 29-1-1979. Murad Ali has challenged that judgment of the High.
5. Court in Civil Petition No, 487/77, in this Court and leave to appeal was granted to him on 2-11-1981.
6. Mr. Niaz Ali Shah learned counsel for the appellant in that case is present on a notice issued to him for appearance in these matters.
7. We after hearing both the learned counsel, are of the view that the petitioner would be entitled to defend the judgment of the High Court in Murad Ali's appeal pending before this Court on all the grounds available under the law to her including those which are not mentioned in the judgment of the High Court against which that appeal is pending. This is in accord with the principle underlying in Order XXXIII, rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. Both these petitions are dismissed.