1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This is petition for review of this Court's order, dated 26-4-1983 passed in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1595 of 1980.
2. The relevant facts are that an evacuee house situated in Sialkot was ordered to be divided by the Settlement Commissioner and separate portions thereof transferred to both the parties. However, on the writ petition filed by Allah Dad Khan, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, the said order was set aside by the order of a learned Single Judge, dated 30-3-1966 and the entire house was ordered to be transferred to him.
3. Abdul Hamid, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 10 filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 971 of 1966 in the High Court to challenge the above order. During the pendency of the L.P.A., Allah Dad died on 10-2-1966 but the legal representatives of Allah Dad were not impleaded by Abdul Hamid for 13 long years. In the meanwhile, the L.P.A. Stood abated on 9-7-1967 by operation of law. When the L.P.A. Came up for hearing in 1980, the learned Judges of the Division Bench, by an order, dated 21-9-1980, dismissed the L.P.A. As having abated. However, in pursuance of an application filed on 9-7-1980 for impleading the legal representatives of Allah Dad Khan and setting aside the abatement, the L.P.A. Bench of the High Court set aside the abatement by another order, dated 10- 11-1980. It then went on to consider the appeal on merits and restoring the order, dated 17-7-1961 passed by the Settlement Commissioner again ordered its division. The petitioners then moved this Court by a petition for special leave to appeal (C.P.S.L.A. No. 1595/1980). This was dismissed by this Court on 26-4-1983. Hence this petition for review.
4. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners when the petition for leave to appeal was heard was that the appeal in the High Court (L.P.A. 971 of 1966) having abated and the abatement in the High Court having been set aside only on 8-10-1980 the L.P.A. Shall be deemed to have been instituted on that date. Since, in the meantime, the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 had been promulgated and by section 3 thereof, Letters Patent Appeals had become barred, only pending appeals having been saved, the Division Bench allowing the said appeal had no jurisdiction to do so because the instant Letters Patent Appeal could not be deemed to be a pending appeal.
5. This contention was overruled on the consideration that the question agitated before this Court was not argued before the Letters Patent Appeal Bench, who allowed the appeal. Moreover, the Letters Patent Appeal Bench, while setting aside the abatement of the appeal vide its order, dated 8-10-1980 had directed that it should be restored to its original number, namely, Letters Patent Appeal No. 971 of 1966 and it was, thus, treated to be a pending appeal and disposed of accordingly.
6. In support of this review petition, it is submitted that the High Court had no jurisdiction to set aside the abatement of Letters Patent Appeal No. 971 of 1966 in 1980 as the same had abated in 1967 and was not pending on 14-4-1972 when the Law Reforms Ordinance was put in force. Since there was inherent lack of jurisdiction in the Letters Patent Appeal Bench after 4-4-1972, the order passed in 1980 inherently lacked jurisdiction which defect could neither be waived nor the illegality cured by consent. Hence the order of the Letters Patent Appeal Bench dated 8-10-1980, whereby the abatement was set aside and the appeal accepted, was void as it suffered from inherent lack of jurisdiction. It is also submitted that this Court had overlooked its pronouncement in Sardar Noor Hussain v. Chief Settlement Commissioner PLD 1983 SC 62, hence this was a fit case for review.
7. We find that the contention raised in support of the review application is in substance largely the same which was raised before this Court when the petition for leave to appeal was before us and was repelled. In these circumstances. No good ground for review of this Court's earlier judgment exists.
8. M. I.Review declined.