' SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J.---This review petition has been directed against the judgment of this Court, dated 18-11-1996, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner, herein, was dismissed.
2. We have heard the preliminary arguments on the review petition. It has been contended by the petitioner that as the petitioner had filed a civil suit, which was pending at the time of the institution of the writ petition, it cannot be said that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was hit by laches.
According to the petitioner, if an order of a Rehabilitation Authority or Custodian is challenged as being mala fide, the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to try the matter. It may be stated that the aforesaid point agitated in the review petition has been dealt by us in the judgment under review.
The petitioner, herein, filed the writ petition after the expiry of eleven months, reckoned from the date of the relevant orders passed by the Custodian, for which there is no explanation in the writ petition. It has also been dealt with in the relevant judgment that the petitioner filed a belated writ petition where his civil suit was still pending in the Civil Court and, thus, his plea with regard to the condoning of delay is without any force.
3. The other point on which the writ petition was dismissed by the High Court and the findings were also confirmed by this Court was that the petitioner had previously filed a writ petition but the same was dismissed in default and fresh writ petition was not competent. The case of the petitioner is that the previous writ petition was not filed by him but by somebody else on his behalf to deter him from pursuing the remedy subsequently. While disposing of the appeal, this Court opined that the question as to whether the previous writ petition was filed by the petitioner or he was personified by some one, cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction because that being a question of fraud, needs a detailed inquiry. There is ample authority in support of the proposition that the question of fraud ordinarily is not to be resolved in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
4. It has repeatedly been held by this Court that the review jurisdiction is not the same thing as the appellate jurisdiction. Thus, the points decided in an appeal cannot be re-agitated by filing a review.
In the light of what has been stated above finding no force in this review petition, it is hereby dismissed in limine.
Review dismissed.