' This FA.O. Calls in question an order dated 12-5-1990 of the learned Judge, Social Security Court Camp at Sahiwal whereby he refused to entertain the review application brought by the appellant against the order dated 1-2-1989 passed by the learned predecessor Judge.
2. A preliminary objection was taken that since there was no right of review against the order dated 1-2-1989 of the learned Judge, Social Security Court Punjab, Lahore, afortiori there was no right of appeal against dismissal of the review application.
3. The objection raised to the maintainability of the present appeal appears to be well-placed. The only provision of the Ordinance giving a right of review is section 58 thereof, and the same contemplates a right against the order of Institution rather than the Security Court. Admittedly the order of the Institution was not sought to be reviewed. It implied that the right of review given by the only provision of the Ordinance was not availed. Thus, the order dated 1-2-1989 became final for all purposes. By making subsequently an application for its review was a futile exercise, and evidently dismissal of such an application would not further give a right of appeal. On this premise the present appeal is untenable.
4. Mr. Sarwar, counsel for the appellant, however, laid stress that the order dated 1-2-1989 of the learned Judge, Social Security Court suffered from an arithmetical mistake inasmuch as the excess relatable to the period from 1-5-1974 to 31-8-1981 on calculation came roughly to Rs,51,000 odd and not Rs,5,977.57 as determined in the said judgment. He stressed that the report of the Social Security Officer working out arrears was misread and that if true figures were worked out, the appellant would have a right to ask for refund of as large an amount as Rs,51,928.80. It would be appreciated that the so-called arithmetical mistake does not float on the record as remarked in Mst. Bilqis Bibi v. Mst. Zainab Bibi and others 1989 SCM R 1008, and that it needed some ex facie calculation by computing figures here and there. I do not think the power vesting in a Court under section 152, C.P.C. Permits an ex facie inquiry by entering into calculation etc. The record reveals that the appellant had been himself delinquent not only in making contribution to the Institution but also producing record before them in support of his contention that he had only three and not six employees. Had he been vigilant, the so-called mistake would have been avoided. In any case, the appeal before this Court being incompetent. It is difficult to grant the appellant any relief. The appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.