1. DORAB PATEL, J----This Review application has been filed again: thin Court's order of 31-3-1977 dismissing a petition for leave filed by the petitioner and others. Who facts relevant to this Review petition are set out in the Court's order of 14-2-1977, therefore, we would only observe here that the petitioners are claimant displaced persons and the dispute in the petition relates to agricultural land in Vehari Tehsil Multan District. As the land was evacuee, on 23-11-1956 Mr. I. U. Khan, the Rehabilitation Commissioner, had passed an order cancelling allotments in many Chaks in Multan District and prescribed the conditions on which the claims of the parties concerned were to be examined and decided. Some of the many persons affected by this order had immediately filed a writ petition against this order in the Lahore Seat of the West Pakistan High Court which was allowed. The result was that Mr. I. U. Khan's order was set aside and the parties, who relied upon this order, had filed petitions for leave. In this Court which were admitted. These appeals were allowed in 1966, one of them being Allah Bakhsh v. The Rehabilitation Commissioner and others, but meanwhile the petitioners before us had filed a writ petition in 1958, being Writ Petition No. 605-R of 1958 in the High Court at Lahore, to challenge Mr. I. U. Khan's order of 23-11-1956. This writ petition was allowed and Mr. I. U. Khan's order was set aside. The respondents or some of them were unsuc- -cessful in challenging the High Court's judgment against them which became final, and, according to Mr. Qureshi the result was that the petitioners before us remained in possession of the lands in dispute in the petition. But the allotments of the petitioners and others were later challenged on the basis of this Court's judgment in Allah Bakhsh's case. Particulars of this prolonged litigation are not relevant and it is sufficient to state that the petitioners and others were successful in the Settlement Department, therefore, the respon--dents had filed writ petition in the Lahore High Court against the final decision of the Settlement Department and as their wait petition was allowed the petitioners and others filed a petition for leave against the Lahore High Court's judgment of 12-10-1976.
2. This petition for leave came up for hearing before a Bench of this Courts of which one of us was a member on 14-2-1977. There were many petitioners in this petition but they fell into two groups. One group consisted of the petitioners who had successfully filed Writ Petition No. 605-8 of 1958 (or their successors in-interest), while the other group consisted Of persons who were not parties to Writ Petition No. 605-8 of 1958. 1t is obvious that this latter group of petitioners bad no case whatever for the grant of leave in view of this Court's judgment in Allah Bakhsh's case. Accordingly we had refused leave to this group of petitioners by our order dated 14-2-1977. But Mr. Qureshi had attempted to distinguish the case of the other group of the petitioners (who are the persons who have filed this review petition on the ground that the case of this group of petitioners was supported by the Lahore High Court's judgment In Writ Petition No. 605-R of 1958. Learned counsel apparently assumed that these petitioners had obtained fresh allotments from the Rehabilitation Department in view of the High Court's judgment in their favour. As these orders had, however, not been filed with the petition for leave, we had allowed learned counsel's request for time to file the orders of the Rehabilitation Department on which ho relied. The petition then came up for hearing on 310 March, 1967 and as learned counsel had not filed the orders for the production of which he had been granted an adjournment, the Court dismissed the petition for leave "in tote". Hence this review petition.
3. It was Mr. Qureshi's case before us on 14-2-1977 that the Rehabilitation authorities had passed orders restoring the allotments of the petitioners in consequence of the High Court's judgment in Writ Petition No. 605-8 of 1958. However in pressing this review application, he states that the Rehabilitation Department had not issued free allotment orders in favour of the petitioners and he further contends that fresh orders of allotment were not required because in view of the judgment obtained by the petitioners in their favour in Writ Petition No. 605-8 of 1958, they had never been dispos--sessed. As Mr. I. U. Khan's order was passed at least two years before the judgment, the argument assumes that this order had not been implemented for two years. To meet this difficulty Mr. Qureshi submitted that the petitioners have been in possession of the land in dispute at the date of their writ petition. And as they had obtained an ad interim order when they had filed their writ petition they automatically remained in possession after their writ petition had been allowed.
4. The question whether the petitioners had remained in possession of the land in dispute as claimed by them is a question of fact and in order to prove this claim of possession, Mr. Qureshi has now filed a copy of the High Court's order in Writ Petition No. 605-R of 1958. This is an ad interim order directing the maintenance of the status quo and it can help the claim of the petitioners only if they were in possession of the land in dispute on the day when this order was passed. Learned counsel was not able to refer us to any evidence to show that the petitioners were in possession as claimed by them on 19-11-1958. But even if we assume that they were in possessions of the land ire dispute ors this date, the further difficulty in their way is that this plea was not advanced by them on the date when their petition for leave was heard by this Court. Indeed they had not cared even to file a copy of this order of 99-11-1958 an the basis of which learned counsel now invites us to review the Court's order dismissing the petition for leave.
5. When we invited learned counsel to explain why the submission now advanced lid not been advanced earlier, learned counsel's reply was that the petitioners had forgotten about this order because it was contained in the file of Wait Petition No. 605-R of 1958. As the stay order in a writ petition would necessarily be in the file of that writ petition, it cannot be said that this stay order was a document which the petitioners were not able to procure despite reasonable diligence on their part. No ground has therefore, beet), made out for a review, nor can we permit the petitioners to file a document after the dismissal of their petition for leave in order to enable them to make out a ground for seeking a review of the order dismissing their petition for leave.
6. Learned counsel then stated that the equities were in favour of the petitioners because they had been in possession of the land in dispute for more than twenty years. The argument is, to say the least, surprising because the claim of the petitioners is based on a judgment which is admittedly bad law. However, these and other submissions advanced by the learned counsel relate to the merits of case and do not furnish any ground for a Review.
7. The Review application is dismissed.