' NASIM HASAN SHAH, C.J.---The petitioners filed a petition under Articles 188 and 187 of the Constitution read with Order 26, Rule 1 and Order 33, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 for review of this Court's order dated 25-11-1991 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No,87 of 1987 and Civil Appeal No,698 of 1990.
2. This petition was returned to the petitioners on 16-6-1992 with the observation that the "review petition was placed before Honourable A.C.J. And his Lordship has been pleased to pass the following order:- "Parties not before this Court when the judgment was passed cannot be permitted to file a review petition.
' The present review petition cannot be entertained."
3. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioners have submitted this application under Articles 187 and 188 of the Constitution read with Order 26, Rule 1, Order 33, Rule 6 and Order 5, Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules for reconsideration of the matter.
4. It is submitted that the property transferred to the petitioners formed subject-matter of the appeal in which the petitioners had not been impleaded as party. Hence they were aggrieved by the judgment of this Court dated 25-11-1991 as the respondent was pressing into service the said judgment against the petitioners hence they are entitled to place their grievance before the Court.
5. The respondent in reply has controverted the fact that the rights of the petitioners have been affected without making them a party in the Appeal No,87 of 1987 filed by the appellant. In this connection it is submitted that so far as respondent No,1 is concerned he was arrayed as respondent vide an application dated 24-9-1986 much before leave grant order dated 10-.1-1987 in Civil Appeal No,87 of 1987 and as required under Supreme Court Rules the service under registered A.D. Cover was effected.
6. As far respondent No,2 Muhammad Saleem Chughtai is concerned it is submitted that he was a lessee of the respondent and had been paying the rent to her husband. The order of transfer now being relied upon by him in his favor has surfaced for the first time after the judgment of this Court dated 25-11-1991.
7. We have heard Mr. S.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record at great length.
8. We observe that the litigation about this property has been pending in the Custodian Courts since 1950's. Even in the appeal filed by the respondents (Civil Appeal No,87 of 1987) she impleaded as many as 166 persons as respondents who were claiming any interest in the property in dispute namely 10-Montgomery Road, Lahore. A very large number of these respondents were present and came to the Supreme Court during the hearing of this case, which were held at Lahore and we have no doubt in our minds that every one who had any right in the aforesaid property was fully aware of these proceedings and if no formal notice of these proceedings was served upon him, he was completely cognizant of the proceedings before this Court This review petition has been filed taking advantage only of a technicality. The petitioners appear to have kept silent during the proceedings awaiting the result of the decision in the appeal so that, in case the decision went against them, they could take advantage of this technicality.
9. We do not think this is a fit case for reconsideration of the earlier order refusing to entertain the review petition.
10. This petition must, therefore, fail and is accordingly dismissed hereby.
Review .