1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J. -The learned Advocate for the peti--tioner has failed to place before us any ground available for review under Order XLVII, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He has contended that this Court has erroneously held in the impugned order that the guest house constituted a single unit although the Settlement Commissioner in his order dated the 10th of March 1965, had held that the house consisted of more than one unit and one of them was in possession of the petitioner.
2. This contention omits to take notice of the fact that the Additional Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 10th of December 1959, had held that the guest house which is the subject-matter of dispute here constituted one residential unit and it was transferred to Captain Abdul Aziz and Mst. Hajra Bi, the former being a claimant and one of the occupants of the house. Ultimately this decision of the Additional Settlement Commissioner was maintained by the Chief Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 17th of March 1960, after a spot inspection. The petitioner's belated revision petition from the aforesaid order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner was filed before another` Settlement Commissioner and the order of the 10th of March 1965, was passed therein. In this order the Settlement Commissioner had observed that the house consisted of more than one unit The order of the 16th of March 1965, was challenged in a writ petition before the High Court by Captain Abdul Aziz and Mst. Hajra Bi and it was allowed and the impugned order dated the 10th of March 1965, was set aside, inter alia, on following grounds
(1) That the revision petition before the Settlement Com--missioner Mr. Abdullah Jan Mirza upon which the impugned order dated the 10th of March 1965, was passed was hopelessly barred by time ;
(2) that the present petitioner bad attorned to Captain Abdul Aziz and Mst. Hajra Bi and therefore the principle of estoppel applied against the petitioner ;
(3) that the case had already been adjudicated upon up to the level of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and therefore the Settlement Commissioner could not interfere with that order.
3. The petition has no substance and it is accordingly dismissed.