1. Dorab Patel, J.-The dispute in this petition for leave relates to a house on Egerton Road in Lahore which is owned by the petitioner. He had agreed by a written agreement dated 29th June, 1974 to sell this house to the first respondent for a sum of Re. 9,00,000 and the agreement stated that Re.
2. 3,00,000 had been paid as earnest. The only other condition of the agreement which is relevant is that the balance of Re. 6.00,000 Was to be paid within 45 days and if it was not paid the earnest money was to be forfeited. Differences arose between the patties and according to the petitioner it was the first respondent who repudiated the sale agreement. Be this as it may, the first respondent filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Lahore against the petitioner for the specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 29th June, 1974. The petitioner contested the suit but on the 14th of November, 1974, be submitted an application, the relevant part of which reads as follows: "That with a view to have better relations and to avoid litigation, the applicant- defendant No 1 has no objection to the grant of decree with no costs, in favour of the plaintiff for the specific performance of the contract in question by executing sale deed as per terms of the Agreement to sell dated 29th June 1974 on the basis of which the sale deed has been a: yet upon, and to get the same registered within ten days by making payment of the sale price either to the applicant defendant No. 1 or depositing in this Hon'ble Court and making payment of taxes etc. As provided for in the Agreement to sell dated 29th June 1974." , Now although according to tote petitioner he had withdrawn the offer contained in his application, the learned Senior Civil Judge decreed the soft against him on the basis of this offer (namely of 14th November, 1974). Therefore, the petitioner challenged this decree in an appeal in the Lahore High Court. The Lahore High Court took the view that the petitioner had by his application of 14th November, 1974 "confessed judgment" but as some of the terms of the decree were inconsistent with the terms of the sale agreement, the High Court modified the decree to that extent in the petitioner's favour and with this variation of the trial Court's decree, it dismissed the petitioner's appeal by its judgment dated 18th February, 1977.
3. The petitioner challenged this judgment of the High Court In a petition for leave in this Court being C. P. 5l-R of 1977. Now the second respondent is the tenant of the premises in dispute and an appeal of the petitioners rising out of g rent cite was also pending in this Coot and this appeal came up for hearing with Q P. 51-R of 1977 before this Court on the 20th of April, 1977. The appeal was dismissed and as to the petition for leave, this Court observed.
4. "As observed by the learned Judges in the High Court the petitioner confessed judgment on 1411- 1974 and gave up all the objections which he now seeks to raise against the decree passed on his concession. The High Court has, to the advantage of the petitioner, further modified the decree passed by the trial Judge and provided that the plaintiff respondent shall pay all taxes and fees as stipulated in pares. 5 and 6 of the agreement of sale.
5. After we announced the orders, Mr. Pirzada pointed out that he bad moved an application a day earlier to treat the Civil. Petition se an appeal. The respondent has no notice of the application while we see no reason to accede to his request, the application will be fixed for hearing with notice to the opposite-party on a date in office.
6. Order accordingly."
7. Finally, it is sufficient to state here that the petitioner's contention that be was entitled to challenge the Lahore High Court's judgment of 18th February,1977 under Article 185(2) (d) of the Constitution was rejected by this Court by its order dated 15th November, 1977. However, whilst dismissing the proceedings thus instituted by the petitioner age the Lahore High Court's judgment, this Court observed.
8. "Before parting with the case we would however like to remark that if advised the Pirzada can approach the High Court for a review of the Judgment of the High Court."
9. In view of these observations, the petition r filed a review application before the Lahore High Court for the review of its judgment dated 18th February, 1977 and it would appear from the order under appeal that Review was sought on the ground that the High Court had erred in holding that the petitioner had "confessed judgment" or admitted liability for the first respondent's claim because of the application filed by him in the trial Court on 14th November. 1974 and it would appear that the petitioner also claimed that he was entitled to forfeit the earnest money with him on account of the first respondent's breach of the agreement of sale. The learned Judges of the High Court, however, dismissed the review application on 29-1-1978 with the observation "we had considered both these points in our judgment and do not think that these contentions raised bring the petitioner's case within the purview of Order XLVII, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure". The petition stands dismissed". Hence this petition for leave.
10. Mr. Pirzada appeared in person and submitted that the trial Court and the High Court had erred in holding that his application in the trial Court of 14th November, 1974 amounted to an admission of liability for the first respondent's claim because tats application bad been withdrawn. He also submitted in the alternative that his application that a decree be passed against him as prayed was subject to the condition that the sale of his property should be registered within ten days and the further condition that the first respondent had to pay a total of Rs. 9,00,000 as the earnest paid by him had been validly forfeited by the petitioner.
11. As it was not possible to examine these submissions without the application filed by the petitioner in the trial Court on 14th November, 1974, we permitted him to short us a copy of this application from the paper-book of C. P. S. L. A, No. 51-R, of 3977 and having read it we agree with the view taken in the impugned order that the petitioner cannot in the events that have happened claim the forfeiture of the earnest of Rs. 3,00.000 paid to him by the first respondent in any extent, this submission as well as the other submissions advanced by the petitioner relate to the construction of his application of 14th November, 1974 in the light of the events the had happened and even if we any for the sake of argument that the petitioner's contentions are correct the highest it would only mean that the view taken by the High Court in its judgment of 18th February, 1977 whilst disposing of the petitioner's appeal, was erroneous. But a judgment cannot be reviewed because it is erroneous, therefore, the petitioner argued at length to show that the alleged errors in the High Court's judgment were errors apparent on the record. We are unable to accept this submission, but it is not necessary to examine this aspect of the case, further because this Court has dismissed the petition for leave filed by the petitioner against the High Court's judgment of 18th February, 1977 and as we showed earlier, this Court observed in its order of 20th of April, 1977 that it agreed with the High Court's view that "the petitioner confessed judgment on 14-11-1974 and gave up of (his) objections . . . . . " As this order has become final and has not been challenged try the petitioner, therefore, he is precluded from challenging the view taken in the High Court's judgment whether by way of a review or through any other remedy.
12. The petitioner then stressed the fact that this Court had permitted him by its order of 15th November, 1977 to file a Review. The argument is misconceived. This Court merely observed that the petitioner cool approach the High Court if so advised. As this Court's order of 20th April. 1977 has become final, it is clear that the petitioner could not press in supports of his review application any grounds which had been rejected by the Court on 20th April, 1977 and as the grounds on which he had pressed his review before the High Court were the very grounds rejected by this Court, the review filed by him had to be dismissed and was dismissed.
13. This petition for special leave is without merit and is dismissed.