' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---Mst. Zubaida Imran petitioner herein seeks review of judgment dated 19-5-1992, of this Court whereby Civil Appeal No,903/90 filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The present respondents Nos.1 to 3 instituted suit against the petitioner and her husband namely, Imran Hassan Siddiqui, for specific performance of a contract of sale dated 13-10-1982, in respect of the suit property. The learned Civil Judge, Bahawalpur, on 21-1-1986, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.
3. The petitioner assailed the judgment and decree dated 21-1-1986, through Regular First Appeal No,20 of 1986, in the Lahore High Court (Bahawalpur Bench) but did not implead Muhammad Arif Khan, one of the decree holders as respondent in the appeal, and instead arrayed Imran Hassan Siddiqui, her husband as respondent No,3 in the appeal.
4. On 4-5-1986, Ch. Abdul Sattar respondent No,1 filed application for the dismissal of appeal on the ground that the petitioner failed to implead Muhammad Arif Khan as respondent in the appeal within period of limitation, the appeal had abated and merited dismissal.
5. The relevant record reveals, that the petitioner filed application on / 12-2-1987, for impleading Muhammad Arif Khan as respondent in appeal and on 2-3-1987 moved another application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay occurred in impleading him as respondent in the appeal beyond the period of limitations
6. The learned Judges of the Division Bench of Lahore High Court on 19-6-1988, dismissed the application on merit.
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed petition for leave to appeal. This Court on 21- 5-1990, granted Leave to consider whether the A omission to implead Muhammad Arif Khan, as respondent in the appeal was inadvertent and could be condoned.
8. This Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties, on 19-5-1992, found that the petitioner committed gross negligence in not impleading Muhammad Arif Khan as respondent in appeal, within the prescribed period of limitation and dismissed the appeal. Hence this petition.
9. The learned counsel for petitioner, contended that memorandum of appeal filed by the petitioner in the High Court on 13-2-1986, would show that it was due .To inadvertence, that Imran Hassan Siddiqui, was impleaded as respondent No,3 instead of Muhammad Arif Khan. It was submitted that the omission was not wilful.
10. We have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for petitioner. He, however, was unable to explain the inordinate delay occurred in impleading Muhammad Arif Khan as respondent. As a matter of fact it was Abdul Sattar respondent No,1 who had moved the application on 4-5-1986, for the dismissal of appeal which led her to file application for impleading Muhammad Arif Khan as one of the respondents in the appeal.
11. The learned Judges in the High Court as .Well as of this Court after hearing the case and perusing the record, found that it was a case of gross negligence on the part of the petitioner.
12. In our view this is not a fit case to review the impugned judgment passed by this Court. This petition has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
Review dismissed.