1. ' BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.---The necessary facts for disposal of this appeal are that Mutation No,194 was sanctioned in favour of Muhammad Malik son of Dadu under the Land Reforms Act.
2. Muhammad Malik sold the land to Karamat Ali Khan and Gul Muhammad Khan sons of Sahib Dad Khan on 9-1-1972. Sardar Ali, Akbar Ali and Walayat Begum filed a revision petition before the Land Commissioner who accepted the petition and set aside the mutation. Karamat Ali Khan and Gul Muhammad Khan, vendees, filed a review petition which was decided on 14-12-1978 and Mutation No,194 was restored. Barkat Ali, Sardar Ali and Akbar Ali filed second review petition which was accepted by the Land Commissioner on 18-5-1987 by holding that material facts had been suppressed and the previous order had been obtained from him through fraud. Muration No,194 as well as the decision of the Assistant Land Commissioner dated 11-9-1972 were set aside.
3. ' A writ petition was filed by Karamat Ali Khan challenging the order of the Land Commissioner passed by him on 18-5-1981. The writ petition has been accepted on the ground that law did not authorise the Land Commissioner to further review an order passed in the review jurisdiction. This point has been dealt with in para. 15 which is as follows:- "15. Now the next question arises that once when the Commissioner has exercised review power then whether he can again exercise the review power against an order pased in a review jurisdiction. Law does not authorise or confer any jurisdiction on the Commissioner to further review the order passed in a review jurisdiction, if,this practice will be allowed then there will be no end of litigation, thus the order passed by the Land Commissioner on the review application of the non- petitioner No,1 dated 18th May, 1987, is without jurisdiction and the Land Commissioner has passed the order without jurisdiction."
4. ' The power of review under reference is provided in rule 11 of the Land Reforms Rules. The rule runs as follows:- "The Land Commissioner or Deputy Land Commissioner may, of his own motion or on an application of any party interested, made to him in that behalf within ten days from the date of the order, review, and, on so reviewing, modify, reverse or confirm an order passed by himself or by any of his predecessors-in-office."
5. ' The learned counsel for appellant Sardar Ali vehemently contended that the learned Judge in the High Court fell in error in holding that second review did not lie. He relied on three cases from Lahore High Court on this point. In Ghazi Muhammad v. The Custodian, Evacuee Property, West Pakistan PLD 1960 Lah. 862 a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court analysed the phraseology of subsection (6) of section 43 of the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957 which authorises the Custodian of Evacuee Property to review his ov5n order or an order passed by his predecessor-in-office on any ground whatsoever as the justice of the case may require at any time, and expressed the view that these powers were very wide and did not confine the exercise of this power to only one occasion.
6. ' In Dr. Muhammad Fazil Zahir v. Mst. Begum Jan PLD 1966 Lah. 53 a learned single Judge of the High Court broadly laid down that in view of rule 9 of Order XLVII of the C.P.C. Which lays down that the "no application to review an order made on an application for a review or decree or order passed or made on a review shall be entertained", the power of review cannot be invoked repeatedly.
7. However, the learned Judge proceeded to make the following observations which are relied upon by Ch. Muhammad Sharif Tariq, the learned counsel for the appellant:- "17. There is, however, some authority for the view that a second application for review of the original order is admissible when some fresh ground is advanced in support of such application , which the applicant was not in a position to adduce in the former application. See 107 PR 1883 and AR 1915 Cal.
432. In such a case it can perhaps be said that second application falls within the purview of sub- rule (1) of rule 1 of Order XLVII. I am, therefore, inclined to agree that although rule 9 forbids a second review application, such an application might be considered if it discloses a fresh ground which was not available to the applicant at the time he he made the first application for review."
8. ' In Hari Singh v. Muhammad Said AIR 1927 Lah. 200 while interpreting Order XLVII of the C.P.C. It was held that although it is laid down in that rule that no application to review an order made on an application for review of a decree or order passed on review shall be entertained, but this did not mean that second application for review on new grounds cannot be entertained if made within limitation. It was, however, held that it did not mean that the plaintiff could go on for ever presenting the review petitions on the same ground.
9. ' Raja Muhammad Siddique Khan vehemently contended that review one after another cannot be filed. He also raised the point that in any case limitation is prescribed for filing a review petition and such a petition would not lie once the time limit had expired.
10. ' We may take note of the fact that in the Supreme Court Rules it is provided that no second review would lie. It is also pi voided in rule 9 of Order XLVII of the C.P.C. That a second review does not lie.
11. There is no such provision in section 43(6) of the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act and upon construction of the phraseology of that subsection the Lahore High Court in Ghazi Muhammad's case mentioned above formed the view that succeeding review petition was allowed by law. As noted above in spite of the provisions of rule 9 of Order XLVII, C.P.C. In the two aforementioned cases of Dr. Muhammad Fazil Zahir and Hari Singh it was held that a second review would lie on fresh ground. There is no bar in rule 11 of the Land Reforms Rules that a second review or succeeding review does not lie. In this view of the matter it cannot be said that a successive review petition does not lie.
12. ' We may however add that the question of limitation and the question of grounds on which the review would lie arc two aspects of the matter which are independent of the question whether a successive review can be entertained. The learned Judge in the High Gaut has expressed no opinion on this aspect of the case because he did not feel called upon to do so in light of the view formed by him that no second review was competent at all. It needs to be noticed that, although limitation is prescribed for making a review application, the exercise of this power by the Custodian is not limited by time.
13. ' Thus if the Custodian reviews an order on a time-barred application such an order would not be an order without jurisdiction.
14. ' In the order under appeal the learned Judge quashed the order passed by the learned Custodian on the short ground that successive review did not lie and, therefore, did not decide some other points which were raised before him. In para. 14 the learned Judge observed as follows:- "14. As other arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, that Muhammad Malik has left the cultivation of the land so wrongly Mutation No,194 has been attested in his favour, these points pertain to the merits of Mutation No,194 and these points will be decided only in case if it is found that second review petition lies. If it is found that no second review petition lies then there will be no need of deciding these points by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction Since we have concluded that the second review petition lies now there arises the necessity of going into the other points left undecided. In the circumstances of this case we are of the view that the High Court should decide these points before they are examined by us. The case will have, therefore, to be remanded.
15. ' As a consequence of the foregoing we accept the appeal and vacate the order of the High Court.
16. The case is remanded for decision on other points involved in the case. There would be no order as to the costs.