' Fazlur Rehman challenged the validity of orders of Rehabilitation authorities and the Government allotting evacuee land measuring 10 marlas out of 1 kanal 12 marlas, comprising survey number 1433/31-min, situate in Muzaffarabad city, in favour of Muhammad Yusuf. It was alleged that the land was allotted to Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din, his father, on whose death, the evacuee land was to devolve on the legal heirs of the deceased allottee, under the Shariat law. Thus, the land transferred by Mst. Sakeena Begum, widow of the deceased, in favour of Muhammad Yusuf Zargar, respondent, in excess of her respective share, was liable to be cancelled. The writ was accepted by a learned Judge of this Court on 3rd December, 1987. The petitioners feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision, preferred review petition on 26th January, 1988.
2. There is difference of opinion as to whether review petition lies against an order passed in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Besides that, limitation for review, as prescribed under the High Court Rules, is 30 days from the date of the impugned order. Rule 43(4) of the High Court Rules provides that an application for review shall be filed before the Deputy Registrar within 30 days after the judgment or the order is passed. This Court is empowered, however, to condone the delay for sufficient cause. In present case, the petition for review was obviously presented beyond 30 days, the period prescribed under the rules. There is no prayer for condonation of delay. In the circumstances, the petition suffers for want of limitation. The objection of limitation was not raised by the learned counsel for the respondent, but despite that, it is permissible to dispose of the petition on the ground of limitation in exercise of powers of this Court. Section 3 of the Limitation Act postulates that in a case where the question of limitation does not rest on facts and it is purely a question of law, the Court can raise the point and decide it suo motu. The power conferred by Section 3 of the Limitation Act, thus, empowers the Court to decide the petition on the point of limitation.
3. Rule 43(2) of the High Court Rules also provides that an application for review shall contain a certificate by an Advocate expressing satisfaction in support of the ground raised in the petition.
This provision is mandatory. It provides that no application for review shall be entertained by the Court without the aforesaid certificate. The form of certificate is also provided therein. The present petition does not contain the certificate of the Counsel. It is, therefore, defective.
4. Khawaja Muhammad Saeed, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, invited attention of the Court to the allotment permit and copy of register of allotments to satisfy that land measuring 10 marlas out of 1 kanal 12 marlas comprising survey number 1433/31-min was surrendered by Ghulam Mohi- udDin, the previous allottee, in favour of Mst. Sakeena Begum, his widow, and that she acquired the allotment in her own right. On this premises, she was eligible to transfer it to Muhammad Yusuf, her son-in-law. The contention is not sustainable. Firstly, the question of fact canvassed in support of the objection, rests on a document which is photostat of the original. The original documents or their certified copies are not appended with the writ petition or the review petition. Unless the photostat carries a certificate of its correctness, it is not receivable in evidence. Moreover, the question of fact relating to allotment of Mst. Sakeena Begum was controverted in the replication filed by Fazlur Rehman. Unless an enquiry is held, a safe conclusion cannot be drawn. In review petition, such an enquiry cannot be made. Therefore, it is not permissible to go into the merits of the case.
' There is no force in the petition. It is, therefore, dismissed with costs.