' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner seeks review of our judgment dated 17-4-1988 dismissing his appeal.
2. Ch. Khalil-ur-Rehman, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in affirming the finding that the Constitutional Petition filed by the petitioner suffered from laches, this Court has omitted to take note of the order granting leave to appeal in which it was mentioned that the petitioner had been following his remedy till 20-6-1974 and further that in fact he had been representing to the various authorities in the matter. Further it is contended that it was not in fact a claim for reduction of the price but for correct assessment of the price. According to the learned counsel, if these two things had been taken into consideration the conclusions drawn would have been different.
3. After examining all the steps that the petitioner claims to have taken after 2-12-1971 and before filing the Revision against the transfer of the property on 13-8-1974, the Court held that "the conduct of the appellant after 2-12-1971 is incapable of any satisfactory explanation, going back to the same authorities with no additional material but the same facts, was a futile exercise and could not end in result except what followed".
' As regards the second ground this Court observed as follows:- "The record on which the appellant relics itself shows that the rent then realized was Rs,360 per month and this part of the entry had not been questioned even by the appellant. What he is questioning is the decision of the Excise and Taxation Officer for the purposes of urban property tax the valuation of the property."
As determinative findings had been recorded on both the points after considering all the facts of the case, no case for review of the judgment is made out. The petition is dismissed.