The applicant is admittedly not a party to the instant writ petition, but has moved this review application for modification of the status quo order dated 11-11-1985. The learned counsel has been asked, as to how a 3rd party can seek a review but he relies on Mst. Fahmeeda Khatoon v-Addl.
Deputy Commissioner (PLD 1972 Lah.492). In that case, a learned Single Judge while holding that a person not party to the proceedings, if affected by an order, can file review application, relied upon decisions in which it has been laid down that a person not party to the suit, can file an appeal with the leave of the Court, if he succeeds in showing that his interest in the property has been adversely affected. The learned single Judge was also of the view that the word "any person" figuring in sub rule (1.) of Order 47, is not relatable to the party to the suit or proceedings but refers to the person not impleaded as a party thereto.
2. The right of appeal and review are not analogous. An appeal is but review is not the continuation of the same proceedings. This factor does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the learned single Judge. Further' the case law on the subject in which a view contrary to the one taken by the learned single Judge has firmly been laid down, was not placed before him. Reference in this connection may be made to Mst. Thamasa Tharaganarv.Mohammad Haji Ganni (AIR 1934 Rangoon 364), In re: Ding Takkis Ltd. (1970 DLC.14), Qaim Hussain and others v.Anjuman Islamia Gujranwala (PLD 1974 Lah.346) and Asghari Begum v. Muhammad Yusuf (l96l Ind. Cases 534)
3. With respect I am unable to agree with the authority cited by the learned counsel and relying upon the precedents aforesaid in which a contrary view has been taken, I hold that instant review application is not competent. Dismissed in limine.
H.B.T./N-259/L