' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Petitioner is aggrieved by the Lahore High Court Order dated 25-2-1999 whereby his application, seeking review of the judgment passed in Writ Petition No,5925 of 1988 decided on 16-12-1998, was dismissed.
2. There is an office objection to the effect that the petitioner is barred by 59 days but it is noticed from the record that since this petition is essentially directed against the order passed in review application, petition filed on 14-4-1999 was well within time. Office appears to have computed the period of limitation from the date of earlier judgment, which does not appear to be correct on the face of the record.
3. In the writ petition, petitioner sought a direction against the respondent LDA for grant of permission to construct a complex vide approval dated 21-6-1980 accorded by the Director- General of the respondent-Authority; injunctive order restraining the respondent from interfering with the construction project of the petitioner and a further direction for exclusion of the land of the petitioner from Johar Town Scheme permanently by dropping the land acquisition proceedings.
The writ petition was filed through Mr. A. Karim Malik, Advocate. It was, however, argued by Mr. Saeed-ul-Hassan, Advocate for Mr. Muhammad Kazim Khan, Advocate for the petitioner and disposed of on merits with the direction that the petitioner may apply for exemption of 30% of the area acquired by the respondent, in terms of the policy and if such application was filed, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law and the policy.
4. In the view petition before the High Court, which was argued by the petitioner himself, it was contented that he was out of the country and that his counsel did not properly present his case.
Learned Judge in the High Court, however, observed that writ petition was argued by Mr. Saeed- ulHassan, Advocate who appeared on behalf of Mr. Muhammad Kazam Khan, Advocate. Power of attorney of Mr. Muhammad Kazam Khan, Advocate was also on record and, on being asked, the petitioner did not deny that the power of attorney bore his signature. On the date of hearing, the said learned counsel was incidentally present in the Court in connection with another case, but, on being asked, he did not deny that he had filed his power of attorney on behalf of the petitioner and that Mr. Saeed-ul-Hassan, Advocate was his junior, who appeared at the time of hearing of the petition.
5. We have heard. Mr. Muhammad Sharif Khokhar, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and examined the impugned order as well as the record. It was vehemently contended that the petitioner did not engage Mr. Muhammad Kazam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court, who at the relevant time, was also the President of Lahore High Court Bar Association. Confronted with the observation of the learned Judge in the High Court that the petitioner did not deny that the power of attorney bore his signatures, learned counsel attempted to justify his stance by stating that the petitioner was away to London and he landed in Pakistan only on 22-12-1999. This stance is, however, of no avail to the petitioner as despite specific direction of this Court vide order, dated 1-1- 2001 to submit his original passport for verification of the material dates on which he claimed his absence out of Pakistan, learned counsel produced a British Passport held by the petitioner reflecting that he landed in Pakistan on 22-12-1999, nevertheless, he could not submit other passport tending to show that he was away from the country on 6-3-1996, which is the date on the power of attorney filed by his learned counsel. Learned counsel had with him a bunch of British and Pakistani Passports held by the petitioner but was unable to substantiate the plea that the petitioner did not engage the abovesaid learned counsel. In view of strong presumption of correctness and sanctity of high order always attached to judicial proceedings, we are not persuaded to accept the bald statement of the petitioner and to disregard the observation of the learned Judge in the High Court that the petitioner did not deny the act of having engaged Mr. Muhammad Kazam Khan. On petitioner's own showing neither he has initiated any action against the said counsel for so-called unauthorised representation nor explained the absence of Mr. A.
Karim Malik, Advocate, through whom the writ petition was filed.
6. We do .Not find any substance and merit in the submissions that the petitioner's case was not argued properly and, thus, he was seriously prejudiced. In our considered view this is hardly a ground for review of a final judgment as, by its nature, the scope of review is restricted to some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new or important matter or evidence, which, despite due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner when the order was passed or for any other sufficient reason. None of the grounds, in our view, is made out in the present case with the necessary corollary that we are persuaded to dismiss this petition and refuse leave to appeal.