' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---Four separate review petitions have been moved against our judgment dated 10-12-1992.
2. The main ground taken up for seeking review of the judgment is that once the Court came to the conclusion as it did in paragraph 19 of the judgment that the law invoked by the petitioners was unexceptionable for claiming relief in the suit, the same should not have been denied to them.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we find that in applying the accepted principle of law to the facts of the case as discussed in the same paragraph 19, we had found as hereunder:-- "On his own showing having never remained in possession during period 1946 to December, 1977, having remained completely ignorant of his ownership during this period, the property having remained in possession of others who claimed it in their own right, could the plaintiff on such pleading claim a case of action since December, 1977 and base a suit on it as within limitation.
None of the cases cited shows such an absonce of possession over such a long period. Taking the maximum from the plaint (7 years of age in 1946) and out of the law cited by the learned counsel for the respondents Kasam Molla v. Fajel Shek and others (PLD 1952 Dacca 347) the period of limitation for any suit in respect of this property expired in 1963. There is no principle known to law whereunder on expiry of full available period of limitation revival of cause of action afresh and running of the limitation period over again could take place either from the date of knowledge or the attornment of the tenants or on obtaining of possession."
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that the conclusion so reached is open to question on the legal plane.
5. No case for review is made out. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed.