1. ' S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---Khair-ur-Rehman petitioner seeks review of the order of this Court dated 20-6-1990 whereby C.P.LA. No,157-P of 1988 filed by him against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, dated 18-6-1988 passed in SA.O. No, 2 of 1987 in favour of Fazal Mahboob respondent, was dismissed as time-barred by one day. The petitioner also seeks leave to appeal vide his C.P.LA.
2. No,247-P of 1990 against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 16-6-1990 passed in Civil Revision No,236 of 1987 in favour of the respondent.
3. ' Fazal Mahboob plaintiff (respondent hereinafter) has brought an application for ejectment before the learned Rent Controller Saidu Sharif, Swat against Khair-ur-Rehman defendant (petitioner hereinafter) from the house in dispute situated in Mohallah Nasir Khel Saidu Sharif, Swat on the grounds that he is the exclusive owner of the said house on the basis of a registered sale deed No,512 dated 12-11-1980 and was rented out to the petitioner @ of Rs,250 per month from 1-2-1980 to 31-12-1981 and thereafter @ of Rs,500 per month. It was alleged that the petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of rent from 1-12-1980 till the institution of the ejectment application and that the respondent needs the house in dispute for his personal use. This application was resisted by the petitioner and in his written statement he has alleged that he is the real owner of the disputed house and mortgaged the same with the respondent and a sum of Rs,250 is being paid to him as interest on the mortgage amount. The petitioner also denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The learned trial Court framed preliminary issue to this effect and after recording the evidence of the parties, vide his order, dated 15-6-1986 passed ejectment order of the petitioner from the house in dispute. Appeal of the petitioner before the District Judge'Swat was dismissed on 12-4-1987 and his subsequent second appeal before the Peshawar High Court was also dismissed through the impugned judgment, dated 18-6-1988.
4. ' During the course of ejectment proceedings the petitioner filed a declaratory suit to the effect that he is the owner of the disputed house with its underneath land and the defendants/respondents have no right to deny his ownership and the registered sale-deed No,512, dated 12-11-1980 is forged, fictitious, illegal and ineffective against his right and is liable to be cancelled. He also sought a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants/respondents from interference with the said house.
5. In this suit in addition to Fazal Mahboob respondent and his brother Fazal Karim defendants Nos.1 and 2, Fazal Wahid Khan Ex-Sub-Registrar, District Registrar and Provincial Government were also impleaded as defendants Nos.3 to 5. This suit was only contested by defendants Nos.1 and 2 and they raised the plea that defendants Nos.3 to 5 are not the necessary parties, they have been misjoined and also challenged the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit. The learned trial.
6. Court vide his order, dated 15-6-1986 returned the plaint to the plaintiff/petitioner under Order VII, Rule 10 of the C1'.C. Appeal of the petitioner before the District Judge failed on 12-4-1987 and his civil revision before the High Court was also dismissed on 16-6-1990.
7. ' The petitioner challenged the impugned judgment dated 18-6-1988 through his C.P.LA. No,157- P/88 before this Court which came up for hearing on 20-6-1990 and the same was dismissed as time-barred by one day. Hence this Review Petition for restoration of his C.P.LA. To be heard on merit and also his connected C.P.L.A. No,247/90 before this Court.
8. ' As far as the civil review petition is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice that the last date for filing of the Civil Petition No,157-P/88 was 24-8-1988 but 22nd to 24th August, 1988 being holidays and thus the petition was filed immediately on the opening day of the Court i.e, on 25-8-1988 which is quite within time and the same may be heard on merit. On inquiry we have found that the contention of the learned counsel is genuine. Hence we accepted the review petition and restored the C.P.LA. No,157-P/88 and heard the same alongwith the connected C.P.LA. No,247- P/90 on merit, ' We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record and findings of the Courts below. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner in his own application (Exh.P.W.1/5) addressed to the Deputy Commissioner Swat, for allotment of official accommodation has himself admitted that he is residing in a rented house for which he pays a sum of Rs,250 per month to the owner of the house who is raising the monthly rent further to Rs,500.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we have come to the conclusion that there is no merit in these petitions and the same needs dismissal. As the contention raised before us is regarding the questions of fact which have already been raised before the lower Court upon which concurrent findings have already been arrived in favour of the respondent. The learned counsel for petitioner has however, failed to bring to our notice any violation of question of law therein which can make out the case of the petitioner liable for further examination of this Court. Under the circumstances, we dismiss both these petitions. Leave to appeal is refused.