TARIQ MAHMOOD, J.--Petitioners filed instant petition on the averments that the property 'in dispute was originally entered in the name of Mr. Ahmed Yar Khan during the first settlement at Khuzdar in 1976. But subsequently at the instance of late Khan Sahib revised entry was made in the name of Petitioner No,
1. It is further their case that later on Petitioner No,1 sold certain portions of property to other petitioners. In 1981 a special revision of record of right of Khuzdar town was ordered and property in dispute was transferred in the name of Government as owner and petitioners were shown as MALBADAR. Petitioners challenged the said entry in Appeal before the Settlement Officer, who was pleased to set aside the revised entries and earlier entries in the name of petitioners were restored. Respondent No,1 being dissatisfied, went in Appeal before the Commissioner but the same was dismissed vide order dated 2nd April, 1994. Respondent No,1 still dissatisfied approached to Member Board of Revenue in his Revisional Jurisdiction and he was pleased to allow the same vide order dated 24th April, 1995. The last mentioned order of Member Board of Revenue was challenged by Petitioners in Constitutional Petition No,180 of 1995 and the case was remanded to Member Board of Revenue with certain observations. On remand the matter was decided by Member Board of Revenue, who upheld the decision of Settlement Officer/Commissioner and dismissed the revision in a slipshod manner and passed a non- speaking order on 19th February, 1997. The said order was challenged by the Government in Review under section 8 of Balochistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957 which was allowed by the full Board, but in Constitutional Petition No,190 of 1998 at the instance of Petitioners this Court again remanded the case to Senior Member, Board of Revenue for disposal strictly in accordance with law. This time Member Board of Revenue after hearing the parties and considering the material, passed detailed judgment and remanded the matter to Settlement Officer with certain directions, vide order dated 22nd May, 1999. The same was challenged by Petitioners in Review, but the same has been dismissed vide order dated 6th April, 2000. Hence this petition.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and have also gone through the relevant record. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that Commissioner passed the Appellate order on 2nd April, 1994, but the Revision before the Member Board of Revenue was filed beyond period of thirty days, therefore, Revision should have been dismissed on this score alone. When attention of learned counsel was drawn to the effect that according to copy of judgment annexed with memo. Of revision filed before Member Board of Revenue reflects that Respondent No,1 filed an application for grant of copy on the same day (2nd April, 1994) but copy was prepared and issued on 20th June, 1994, the learned counsel took the plea that in case of Revision, exclusion of time requisite for obtaining of copy of Appellate order was not available under section 12(2) of the Limitation Act. Reliance was placed on PLD 1964 Karachi 795. The learned counsel also took the plea that this Court while remanding the case (Constitutional Petition No,180 of 1995) observed that, "question of limitation has also not been attended by the Member Board of Revenue, in accordance with the provision of Limitation Act", but the directions so issued have been violated. We have not been impressed by the arguments of learned counsel. It may be seen that subsection (2) of section 29 of the Limitation Act relates to special and local laws. This means that part III of the Limitation Act, which deals with computation of period of limitation shall apply, unless these provisions are specifically excluded by such special or local law. Admittedly the same have not been excluded and even in absence of section 167 of Land Revenue Act, would have been applicable. But the contention of learned counsel is that as subsection (2) of section 12 of the Limitation Act nowhere mentioning Revision Application, therefore, same is not applicable in Revision. But while raising such plea, learned counsel has omitted that section 167 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 makes the provision of Limitation Act applicable to Appeals, Review or Revisions, in the matter of computation of period of limitation. As section 167 of the Land Revenue Act expressly provides that provisions of Limitation Act are applicable to Appeal, Review or Revision under this Act (Land Revenue Act), in the matter of computation of period of limitation, therefore, Respondent No,1 was entitled for exclusion of time, in spite of omission of word Revision in section 12(2) of Limitation Act. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel (PLD 1964 Karachi 795) is not relevant, inasmuch as, Karachi Rent Restriction Act, 1953 did not contain any provision, paramateria to section 167 of the Land Revenue Act. The learned Member Board of Revenue as typed at page IX of his judgment has specifically taken into consideration this aspect of the case and recorded the conclusion that time spent in obtaining the certified copy of the judgment was requried to be excluded and hence found the petition within time. The point raised in this petition has no substance for another reason i,e, that order of Member Board of Revenue was challenged in Review Petition and the same was dismissed. Now it is relevant to point out that power to review can be exercised within the four corners of the prescribed condition and limitation. The scope and grounds to review an order have been provided by section 8(1) and power to review could be exercised where there is mistake or error of law or fact apparent on the basis of record. In consequential order or insignificant errors, which cliff not go to the root of the matter were to be ignored but, if error had material bearing on the final result of the case, then same could be interfered in review jurisdiction. Keeping in view these limitations, when we examined the order of Senior Member Board of Revenue dated 22nd May, 1999, we also noticed that Member Board of Revenue was justified in over ruling the objection of limitation, inasmuch as, admitted feature of the case is that Government applied for copy on the same date, but the same was granted on 20th June, 1994 and if the time spent in obtaining the copy is excluded the petition was within time. The order is just and fault of the copying agency or Commissioner Office, cannot be made the basis of penalizing the Respondent No,1. The principle that no one shall suffer on account of the act of Court at least indirectly applies. In our view the Member Board of Revenue in his review jurisdiction has rightly refused to review the order and we do not find any reason to interfere in our Constitutional Jurisdiction. It cannot be ignored that Constitutional Jurisdiction is an equitable relief and even on equity, the petitioners have no case, inasmuch as, there was no fault on the part of Respondent No,1 because he applied for grant of copy of the order on the same day, but the same was prepared and supplied on 20th June, 1994 and the petition was filed within thirty days from thereof. In view of such discussion the second ground raised by the learned counsel that Member, Board of Revenue while passing the impugned orders disregarded the observation of this Court made in Constitutional Petition No,180 of 1995 automatically disappears. At the cost of repetition it may be pointed out that Member Board of Revenue took specific note of objection to limitation and by means of detailed order, overruled the same. Last ground raised by the learned counsel is that there was concurrent findings of facts in their favour and the same could not have been interfered by Member, Board of Revenue in its Revisional jurisdiction. There is no substance in the arguments, inasmuch as, the Revisional jurisdiction of Member Board of Revenue is not limited and the only limitation to exercise of such jurisdiction is that no order could be passed without hearing and notice to the person concerned. In the instant case, admittedly the Petitioners were heard before passing the order and Member Board of Revenue after considering the whole case passed a well- reasoned remand order. Needless to add that Member Board of Revenue inter alia observed that number of documents proving the case of official respondent were available on record but not considered, which is an illegality. The petition even otherwise is also not competent, because the Member Board of Revenue in its Revisional jurisdiction has remanded the case with certain directions to Settlement Officer. This remand order was challenged in review and same has been dismissed. There is no point to challenge the said remand order in Constitutional Jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the petitioners would get full opportunity before the Settlement Officer to agitate their rights and viewpoint. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any substance in the petition, which is dismissed in limine.