' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY,J-- This petition filed under Order XXXIII read with Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules and Orders seeks review of a judgment dated 22-4-1999 passed in Civil Petition No,1773-L of 1998 on the ground that the said judgment had been secured by Mehmood Ahmad Butt respondent by playing a fraud on this Court and consequently prays, inter alia, that the said judgment dated 22-4-1999 be recalled. It may be mentioned here that the judgment which is sought to be reviewed had given a direction to the petitioners to pay service benefits to the respondent from 12-12-1988 to 9-9-1997.
2. The delay of 102 days in the filing of this review petition was also attempted to be justified on the ground that since the respondent had practised fraud on this Court which had led this Court into the passing of the judgment in question, therefore, the limitation did not run against the petitioner.
Reliance in this connection was placed on the following cases:--
(a) PLD 1954 Lahore 745, (b) 1993 SCMR 618, (c) 1994 SCMR 782,
(d) PLD 1975 SC 331 and (e) 1986 SCMR 1496.
3. When we asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to explain how the fraud was committed by the respondent on this Court, it was submitted that the said respondent had left the country in the year 1989, had settled in Germany and that he had even taken a German lady as his wife in order to manoeuvre German nationality, had no plans to return to Pakistan and that he had led this Court to the passing of the judgment dated 22-4-1999 by concealing his said migration to another country.
4. Except for the petitioners' word of mouth there is nothing on record to establish or even to indicate that the petitioner was in Germany for all these years or that he had settled there or that he had no intention to return home. It is not possible for us to give a declaration to the above effect on a mere oral statement of the petitioners. It may be added that grant of service benefits to an employee who had been illegally kept away from his employment was the rule and denial of service benefits to such a reinstated employee was an exception on the proof of such a person having remained gainfully employed during such a period. The mere fact that the respondent had left the country and had gone abroad without any proof of his being gainfully employed during the period in question, was not sufficient to deprive him of the benefits in issue. Needless also to add that nothing is available with us to hold that the respondent had remained gainfully employed somewhere during the said period. Therefore, it is not possible for us to hold that the respondent had committed any fraud on this Court which had led this Court to giving the direction in question for payment of service benefits in terms of the judgment dated 22-4-1999. Since there is no proof of any fraud having been played on this Court and since there is no explanation available with us about the delay of 102 days in the filing of this petition, therefore, this petition is dismissed.
5. However, Criminal Original Petition 32-L of 1999 and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No,36 of 2001 are adjourned to be re-listed in due course.