MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J. - This is an application under Order 47, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure for review of the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court comprising of myself and my learned brother Saeed-ur-Rehman Farrukh, J. (as he then was). This petition came up for hearing originally before a Division Bench which admitted it on 10.9.1997 and issued notice to the respondent. On 7.6.1999 it was noticed that as the judgment under challenge was passed by a Division Bench of which one of the Members has since retired. Under Order 47, Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure in such an eventuality the review petition can be heard by remaining Member of the previous Division Bench alone and not by any other Division Bench. Consequently, the matter was placed before the Honourable Chief Justice who directed that the review application be heard and disposed of by me.
2. I have heard Raja Muhammad Anwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ghulam Hassan Gulshan, Advocate on behalf of the respondent and perused the record with their assistance.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that this Court disposed of the Constitutional petition on the ground that the questions of facts were involved in the case and that the petitioner should file a civil suit. It was, however, not noticed that the second inquiry report was duly approved by the Board of Capital Development Authority and it bears the signatures of its acting Chairman.
Mr. Ghulam Hassan Gulshan has, however, stated that it was earlier report submitted to this Court which presented the true picture and the subsequent report was of no legal effect.
4. In our judgment dated 23.6.1997 we observed that the question as to whether the record has been forged or not is essentially one of fact which cannot be determined without recording any evidence. I must admit that at that time it was not brought to our notice that second inquiry was conducted by the Additional Director Security who placed the matter before the Officiating Chairman who duly approved the report which was also signed by Member Administration. That being so, in terms of Section 4 of the Capital Development Authority Ordinance that report was to be taken as the report of Capital Development Authority. As this aspect of the matter was not considered by us when we disposed of the Intra Court Appeal I am inclined to grant this application tor review and hearing of the appeal on its merits.
In view of the above, this application is allowed and judgment dated 23.6.1997 is recalled with the result that the Intra Court Appeal shall now be listed for hearing before a Bench comprising of two Judges.
No order as to costs.