SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioners seek a review of an order refusing leave to, appeal to their opponents on 12-8-79. They feel aggrieved by certain observations made in that order which, according to them, had occasioned multiplicity of proceedings to their prejudice. The portions which they want to get deleted are specified with particularity in para.24 Ground No. VI (a to c)- of their review petition.
2. When leave to appeal is refused in a case the finality of the order appealed against remains intact. The Court while refusing leave to the opponents of the petitioners made it clear at more than one place that the observations of the Court are not to influence the decision of the competent authorities exercising jurisdiction in the matter. The first expression of it is in the following words:-- At any rate on the view, hereinafter taken by us in this case, it is a matter for the Settlement authorities, if at all, to form their own independent opinion from the facts before them and draw their own conclusions uninfluenced by any observations made by these Courts."
The same caution has been repeated at the end in the following words-- "Indeed as we look at the entire case it was for the Settlement Authorities and neither by the High Court nor even by this Court to examine for themselves the scope and effect of the order, dated 3- 5-62 passed by Ch. Sultan Muhammad Khan, if any, on the rights of the parties."
Such observations, in fact, recognize the distinction between the finding of a Court, the reasons for the finding and the observations made for arriving at the finding. The learned counsel for the parties should in any proceedings occasioned by the observations made by this Court, keep this distinction in view and project it, and if he does so, no possibility of futile proceedings to his prejudice is likely to exist.
3. This petition is also barred by 98 days. Not only on merits it is untenable, it is also hopelessly the- barred. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.