' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This is an appeal from an order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan passed on 23-8-1976 in Review Application No, 665 of 1976.
2. The order passed on Review Application No, 665 of 1976 by the High Court is in the following terms:- "This Review Application under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. Seeks to review our previous order, dated 4-5- 1976 on the ground that there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the order. The alleged mistake or error is said to be the statement in lines 216-218 appearing in the last portion of paragraph 8 of our order, which states that the order dated 19-12-1%7 was not such an order and, in any case, it was recalled by the later order dated 19-3-1968. According to the counsel, the order dated 19-12-1967 was a consent order directing the appellant to deposit the decretal amount in Court and finally disposed of the stay application. The submission of counsel is that once an order has been passed in execution proceedings, it cannot be "recalled" subsequently and therefore the later order dated 19-3-1968 dismissing the stay application was a nullity. It is said that we had failed to so hold in the order, and that this is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the order. In this connection, counsel cited II Indian Appeals P.37 at Page 42 and P.181.
' We have considered this submission but find no substance in it. The order dated 19-12-1%7 was not an order directing the appellant to deposit the decretal amount in Court. All that it records is an offer by the appellant's counsel to deposit the decretal amount in Court subject to the respondent judgment creditor withdrawing it on furnishing bank guarantee. That it was so interpreted is further supported by the subsequent order, dated 19-3-1968 in which it is stated that Mr. Samad Khan himself had filed an application to obtain a direction to the appellant to deposit the money in Court. This shows that even Mr. Samad Khan did not treat the order dated 19-12-1967 as a final order, as otherwise he would not have made the application on 8-2-1968 to the Court seeking to enforce the alleged deposit order dated 19-12-1967. Therefore, we had stated that the order of 19-3- 1968 was the order which had disposed of the stay application and that it had "recalled" the earlier order. We, therefore, find no mistake or error apparent on its face. Accordingly, were dismiss the Review Application summarily."
3. Leave was sought from the above-mentioned order dated 23-8-1976 and while granting leave to appeal vide order dated 4-2-1977 this Court found that the following contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner (appellant herein) required consideration:
(a) That the learned Judges in the High Court were in error in taking the view that the order dated the 19th of December, 1967 was not a consent order requiring the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee before withdrawing the decretal amount deposited in Court by the respondent;
(b) That they were also in error in thinking that such an order made in execution proceedings could be later recalled by the order dated the 19th of March, 1968.
(c) That, in the circumstances of the case, the learned Judges were also not justified in invoking the provisions of Order X, Rule 1, C.P.C. So on the record the statement of the counsel for the petitioner as to the true import of the orders dated the 19th of December, 1967 and the 9th of March, 1968 and to base their conclusions on this statement;
(d) That the High Court was in error in taking the view that the deposit of the decretal amount in Court by the judgment-debtor amounted to a discharge in terms of rule 1 of Order XXI C.P.C. In spite of the conditional order made by the Court on the 9th of December, 1967; and
(e) That in any case this petition raises a substantial questions of law as to the relevant date for the purpose of determining the rate of exchange applicable to the remittance of the decretal amount to the foreign seller keeping in view the statutory requirements regarding the permission of the State Bank under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947."
4. Before us Mr. S. A. Samad, learned counsel for the appellant, has nothing to say with respect to the first three above-mentioned contentions, namely, the contentions reproduced at serial Nos.
(a), (b) & (c) above and it is only the last-mentioned two contentions, namely, the contentions, reproduced at Serial Nos. (d) & (c) above more particularly his contention that the law applicable to determine the relevant date for the purpose of ascertaining the rate of exchange applicable to the remittance of the decretal amount to the foreign seller keeping in view the statutory requirements regarding the permission of the State Bank under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. In concrete terms he wishes us to hold that as the amount deposited in Court does not become payable until the permission of the State Bank of Pakistan has been obtained the date of conversion will be the date of such permission.
We observe that the questions being urged do not really arise from the order dated 23-8-1976 passed on Review Application No, 665 of 1976. On the other hand, the findings recorded in the aforesaid order are not even being challenged. It appears to us that leave to appeal was granted on the impression that all the questions, which have been in controversy between the parties, required adjudication overlooking the fact that leave to appeal was sought only against the order dated 23-8-1976 passed on the Review Application.
' In view of these circumstances we would recall the order granting leave dated 4-2-1977 and dismiss this appeal. No costs.