1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-This miscellaneous appeal is directed against order dated 27-7-1986 passed by the Assistant Registrar of this Court, refusing to entertain an application for the hearing of a criminal petition for leave to appeal (Cr. P. No. 233/1986) which earlier stood dismissed by this Court. The view taken by the Office was that the petition having been dismissed, the orders passed by the Court could not be altered or added to, except when it .Is for correction of a clerical error or an arithmetical mistake or error arising from any accidental slip or omission. Rule 2 of Order X of the Supreme Court Rules was relied upon in this behalf.
2. The appellants then filed an appeal under Order V, Rule 3 read with Order XXXIII, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules against the refusal of the Assistant Registrar to entertain the aforementioned application.
3. In the original petition for leave to appeal the appellants had brought under challenge an order of the High Court whereby the bail granted to the appellants in a murder case by an Additional Sessions Judge, was cancelled. As the appellants had not surrendered to lawful custody after the High Court had passed the order of cancellation of their bail, this Court dismissed their petition and observed that for the said reason, it was not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The appellants, it is stated by the learned counsel, had surrendered to the lawful custody within a few days after this Court dismissed their petition for leave to appeal. Having done so, they sought through the application returned by the Office, the hearing of their petition for leave to appeal. The Assistant Registra having refused to entertain the application made by the appellants, in this behalf, they then filed this miscellaneous appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel in support of the appeal. He has not challenged the order passed by the Court obviously because the appeal has been filed against the order of the Assistant Registrar refusing to entertain an application filed by the appellants and not against the order passed by this Court dismissing the petition for leave to appeal. His argument, however, is that it is within the discretion of this Court to re--examine a matter which already stands disposed of on a ground other than merits.'
5. In the circumstances of this case, it is not possible to act on such a general proposition. When a final order is passed by this Court refusing leave to appeal and the petition in that behalf is dismissed, it cannot b altered except in accordance with due procedure. Cases of dismissal for non-prosecution and other similar orders apart, one way for re-examination is through. a petition for review. The application submitted in the Office admittedly was not one for review. Indeed, none has been filed so far. That being so, the Court apart from its inherent jurisdiction and matter requiring doing the complete justice, can make clerical and other similar corrections under Rule 2 of Order X of the Supreme Court Rules. The question of exercise of inherent jurisdiction or doing complete justice does not arise in this appeal in which the controversy raised is whether the office was right in refusing to entertain the application for re-examina--tion of a case which stood concluded by a formal order of the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal.
6. The Office can refuse to receive any document which is presented otherwise than in accordance with the Rules-Order VII, Rule 7. Similarly, Order XVII, Rule 5, permits Office not to entertain a petition on the ground that it has been filed in violation of any Rule or is frivolous or contains scandalous matters. Such refusal, however, is subject to an appeal as of right before a judge in the Chambers.
7. The sole question requiring determination in this case, therefore, is whether the application filed by the appellants for re-examination of the case which admittedly was no covered by Order X, Rule 2 or the provisions relating to review, should have been entertained by the Office. The answer is obvious that the application was not covered by any of the Rules permitting re-consideration of a final order passed by this Court dismissing a petition for leave to appeal. If it would have been an application for correction of clerical error etc. Or an application for review, the matter would have been different. As already observed, the question of exercise of inherent jurisdiction in this case does not arise as specific remedy by way of review was available. We would not make any comment on the question as to whether a second petition for leave to appeal could have been filed on the basis that the first one was dismissed for non-surrender of the petitioners and not on merits. It does not arise in the present proceedings. If and when such a petition is filed it will only then be examined by the Court as to whether it is competent or not.
8. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this appeal is without merit and is accordingly dismissed.