1. ' BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.---By this review petition Nazir Hussain Shah and others seek reversal of the judgment of this Court pronounced on 27-1-1991. This petition was admitted on 28-4-1992 on the ground that in 8th paragraph of the judgment under review subsection (6) of Section 43 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957 was not correctly reproduced. This contention is correct. At the relevant time mentioned in the judgment, namely, the 14th of January 1987 subsection (6) of Section 43 as in force in Azad Jammu and Kashmir was thus worded:- "(6) The Custodian or Additional Custodian may on application made to him in this behalf within the prescribed period or of his own motion at any time and after giving notice to the parties concerned and the Rehabilitation Authority, review his own order or an order passed by his predecessor-in-office on any ground whatsoever as the justice of the case may require: ' Provided that no final order passed on or before the seventeenth day of November, 1956, declaring any person to be not evacuee or any property to be evacuee property shall be reviewed."
2. ' Due to inadvertence in the judgment of this Court the following phraseology (which was, and is, in force in Pakistan) was reproduced:- "43. (6) Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any order passed by any Custodian under this Act, or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission, may at any time be corrected by the Custodian concerned or his successor-in-office."
3. ' However, we find that this error has no material bearing on the result of the case. The conclusion that the appeal had no force had already been recorded in the earlier paragraphs of the judgment being reviewed and what is incorporated in paragrpah 8 are only observations which do not in themselves symbolise the decision of this Court. Paragraph 8 begins with the words: "Before parting with the case we may observe ' It is clear thus that paragraph 8 contains additional observations and not operative part. So far as the operative part of the judgment is concerned it is, broadly speaking, contained in paragraph 5 which may be reproduced below:- "5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, Ch. Muhammad Taj, but he has not been able to show that the view taken by the High Court is not correct. We are satisfied that the grounds on which the order of the High Court is based are well founded. Appellants all along knew that the land stood allotted to the respondents but they have not been able to have the allotment set aside.
4. The respondents have been accepted by the Rehabilitation Authorities as old tenants but they could not establish any right for getting the allotment of the land under reference. Even if they had any such right it could not have the effect of nullifying the allotment of the land under reference which had become final in 1965, if not earlier."
5. ' In this paragraph a clear cut finding has been recorded that the appellants all along knew that the land stood allotted to the respondents but they could not get the allotment order set aside. It is also clearly laid down that the allotment of land under reference in favour of respondents had become final in 1965 and that the aforesaid respondents could not establish any right for getting the allotment of the land. There is no mention, one way or the other, of the review powers of the Custodian of Evacuee Property in para 5.
6. It is thus clear that incorrect reproduction of subsection (6) of Section 43, mentioned above, does not have any effect on the findings recorded in the earlier paragraphs of the judgment. In spite of the error which we have indicated above the result remains the same.
7. ' The review petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to the costs.