1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-This petition is barred by 261 Gays.
2. The judgment of the Court, sought to be reviewed, was announced on the 13th September, 1972. The petitioner states in his application for con--donation of delay that he applied for the copy of the judgment on the 2nd September, 1972, but, thereafter since be became seriously ill and was con-- fined to bed till the 7th July, 1973, he could not give instructions to his learned counsel to file the review petition. The review petition was filed on the 12th July, 1973.
3. The petitioner has filed a medical certificate in support of his application for condonation. Which states that from 15th September, 1972, the petitioner was suffering from an attack of anterior wall myocardial infarction and sub--sequently had also an attack of anterior wall myocardial Infarction with congestive cardiac failure. He is diabetic and has also suffered from dysarthia and paralysis of right arm and leg and that he is still in a crippled stage.
4. The Caveator, on the other hand, has put in an objection stating that the affidavit is false, because, the petitioner filed an affidavit in the Court of the 2nd.Ndditional City Magistrate, Hyderabad, on the 11th October, 1972, in the case of State v. Khalid Hussain and others, under section 50, P. P. C. A certified copy of the affidavit has also been filed with the objection. Apart from this, it is stated that the petitioner had also been personally attending the office of the Settlement Commissioner, Hyderabad, after the announcement of the judgment of this Court.
5. The review sought is of a judgment of a Bench of this Court in Civil Appeal No. K-41 of 1969, which concerned a dispute with regard to the allot--ment of an urban garden, known as "Dholandas Garden", situated within the Municipal limits of Hyderabad and measuring some 37 acres. It was originally allotted to the present petitioner, but subsequently, this allotment was cancelled and the garden was reallotted to the 1st respondent herein.
6. It appears that the present petitioner was found to have a verified claim in acres of only 22.27 acres, but his contention is that if his claim is verified on the basis of produce index units it will work out to 57 acres. The main question, therefore, which fell to be considered by this Court in the said appeal, was as to whether the allotment of an urban garden could be made in terms of the main Scheme framed in exercise of powers given by section 61 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956, or under the Supplementary Scheme No. 11, which was framed in 1959. The petitioner maintains that even gardens were governed by the provisions of the West Pakistan Rehabi--litation and Settlement Scheme and not by the provisions of the Supplementary Scheme No 2. This Court, however, took the view that urban gardens were allotable only under Supplementary Scheme No. 2, which was framed on the 28th August, 1959.
7. After examining all the contentions advanced on behalf of the present petitioner at the hearing of the appeal, the Court ultimately allowed the peal to the extent that the finding of the High Court that the entitlement of the claimants should be determined on produce index units should be seat aside and it should be declared that the authorities were competent to pre--scribe that entitlement of urban garden hands in Municipal areas will be base cut the verified claims in acres of similar class of lauds left behind in India. With this clarification the order of remand passed by the High Court wait, however maintained and the Rehabilitation Commissioner was directed to determine the entitlement of the contesting claimants according to the prin--ciples laid down by this Court taking into account allotments of other garden lands made to any one of the claimants within the same Municipal area.
8. Learned counsel appearing in support of this review petition has now sought to contend that even under the Supplementary scheme No. 2, the petitioner had the right, to have his entitlement calculated on the basis of pro--duce index units and not on the basis of acres. In support of this contention, he has relied on paragraphs 6, 7 and 15 of the said Supplementary Scheme No. 2.
9. Paragraph 6 of the Supplementary Scheme No. 2 provides that the provisions of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme shall apply mutatis mutandis to all allotments. Paragraph 7 provides that allot--ment, under this scheme shall be made to full to the claimants entitled to an allotment of land up to 20,000 produce index units area a cut of 50 % shall-be applied in respect of the area exceeding this limit, but in no case shall the allotment exceed 36,000 produce index units.
10. Paragraph 15 provides that for the purposes of calculating produce index units of lands in India, the classification of the soil of the verified abandoned area will not be taken into account. It will be given the highest produce index of the assessment circle concerned in the case of East Punjab, East Punjab States and other parts of the agreed areas of India.
11. As pointed out in the judgment of this Court now sought to be reviewed this argument 400 not take into account paragraph '8 of the Scheme, which gives the Rehabilitation Commissioner, West Pakistan, the power to prescribe scales of allotment in any particular area in keeping with local conditions and that the provision thereto specifically with towns with a population of one lac or more and provisional scales so prescribed under this Supplementary Schemes No. 2, should, in no manner, entitle a person to receive an area en sate of that allotted under the Temporary Urban Scheme.
12. Under the Scheme for the Temporary Allotment of Urban Land to Claimants under Schedule IV to the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956. It has been provided in paragraph 7 (iii) that temporary allotments shall be made as far as practicable of urban farad having the same classification as the area claimed to have been abandoned. Provided that if allotment is made of a higher or lower classification than that to which an applicant is entitled, the total area verified shall be increase{I or decreased, respectively for each class prescribed in clause l (i). Under this clause a table is also set out providing the entitlement per acre of each class of land. Now this, read with paragraph of the Scheme, was bell by this Court to be q clear indication that even under the Supplementary Scheme No. 2 no allotment could be made of any area in excess of I that allotted under the Temporary Scheme.
13. The contentions of the learned Advocate appearing in support of this review petition, therefore rally amount to seeking a rehearing of the appeal on the ground that this Court has made a mistake in the interpretation of the various schemes relating to the allotment of urban gardens. This, how-- ever cannot furnish a ground for review, for, a review cannot be granted merely to provide a second chance to a litigant to have his matter re-argued.
14. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that no valid ground for review has been made out and that this petition is also hopelessly barred by time. The explanation given for the inordinate delay of 261 days is not at all satisfactory.
15. We, accordingly, dismiss this petition both on the ground of limitation as also on merits, but there will be no order as to costs.