1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner, a husband under order of maintenance, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 23-8-1984 on a review application filed by him.
2. The Chairman, Arbitration Council ordered the payment of maintenance on 30-3-1983. The certificate was granted on 9-4-1983. The petitioner filed a revision before the Collector on 10-5- 1983 which was not entertained by the Collector on the ground that it was barred by one month and ten days. A constitutional petition was thereafter filed in the High Court which was dismissed in limine on 23-8-1984. Thereafter a review petition was filed and the High Court rejected it with the following observations: "I had in my order, dated 23-8-1984, attended to the contentions raised at the bar and finding no merit therein had dismissed the petition in limine. Review jurisdiction is not a substitute for appellate jurisdiction. There is no error apparent on record justifying interference in review jurisdiction. I, therefore, find no merit in the review petition and dismiss it in limine, however clarifying that Mst. Zakiya Bibi is entitled to receive maintenance at the rate and for the period decided by the Arbitration Council till the divorce pronounced became effective under law."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner for the first the took up the ground that the revision before the Collector was pot in fact barred by the and that the Collector has taken an erroneous view of the law.
4. This petition is shown to be barred by seventy-six days and there is no application for the condonation of delay. We have noted the date of filing of the revision petition before the Collector as given by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We do not find that the objection taken before the Collector that the revision was the-barred by one month and ten days was ever challenged. As we have not the benefit of adjudication on that point, we cannot treat this submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as a pure question of law.
5. So far as the impugned order passed by the learned Judge in review is concerned, on the legal plane there can be no grievance against it for grounds necessary for review were not made out.
6. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.