' AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a review petition, whereby review is sought of the order dated 17-3-1996 declining leave in Civil Petition No, 1357/L of 1995 filed by respondent No,1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the following observation of this Court:-- "As observed by the High Court, the petitioner may, if so advised, approach the authorities concerned, who will pass appropriate orders for disposal of his application for transfer of the premises claimed by him:" ' which were lifted from the judgment dated 20-6-1993 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No,219-R of 1979, which was also filed by respondent No,1, wherein in the concluding portion the following observation was made:- . ' the applicant, if so advised, may approach the authorities concerned, who will pass appropriate orders for disposal of his application for transfer of the premises claimed by him."
2. It appears that pursuant to the above observation, the Notified Officer i.e, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), re-examined the matter and by his order dated 7-6-1994 rejected respondent No,1 's request as under:-- "4. As regards Muhammad Sadiq Butt, he had applied for the condonation of delay of the form under R.P. Scheme filed by him for the portion in his possession, but the property applied for, having been already transferred, is not available. As such his application is hereby rejected. Muhammad Asghar and Muhammad Afzal sons of Noor Muhammad deceased have requested for the disposal of form filed by their deceased father on 26-12-1978, for the portion in their possession. As the property applied for on the basis of the form under R.P. Scheme, is also not available having been transferred already to some other person, the form filed by Noor Muhammad father of these applicants is also hereby rejected."
3. The above order was impugned by respondent No,1 through Writ Petition No,200-R of 1994, which was dismissed by the High Court in limine by holding as under;-- "After hearing the learned counsel and examining the record I feel that the present writ petition is not only misconceived but designed to harass the respondents.
' Resultantly, there is no merit in this writ petition which is dismissed in limine."
4. Against the above order respondent No,1 filed aforesaid Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,1357/L of 1995, which was declined as stated above but the aforesaid observations were lifted from the above earlier judgment of the High Court dated 20-6-1993 in Writ Petition No,219/R of 1979 in the absence of the petitioner. Respondent No,1 pursuant to the above observation has again attempted to re-open the issue which stands concluded by the dismissal of the above petition for leave to appeal. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present review petition.
5. The above review petition is barred by time by 447 days but there is an error apparent on the face of the order of this Court which is sought to be reviewed inasmuch as it lifted the above portion of the High Court's judgment from the aforesaid earlier judgment dated 20-6-1993 in Writ Petition No,219/R of 1979, pursuant whereof, there was second round of litigation but treated the above observation as if made by the High Court in Writ Petition No,200/R of 1995 i.e, in the second round of litigation, which was the subject-matter of the above petition for leave.
6. In our view, it is a fit case in which this Court should review the above order in exercise of its suo motu revisional power which is inherent in Article 188 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. In this view of the matter, the question of limitation has become insignificant. Even otherwise, the petitioner was not served with a notice by the Court at the stage of hearing of the petition for leave to appeal and the above ()icier was passed in her absence.
' ' We would, therefore, allow the above review petition and would direct that the following portion would be deleted from the above order dated 17-3-1996 of this Court declining leave to appeal:-- "As observed by the High Court, the petitioner may, if so advised, 'Approach the authorities concerned, who will pass appropriate orders for disposal of his application for transfer of the premises claimed by him' ."
' The office is directed to act accordingly.