' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this petition, petitioner seeks review of the judgment dated 24th October, 2001 passed by this Court in Civil Petition No,1695-L of 1998.
2. This petition is barred by 61 days. Learned counsel, however, explained that initially he approached the office of this Court by filing review petition within time but the same was returned with the observation that it has not been drafted by the counsel who has appeared at the time of hearing of the petition. According to him on account of clerical mistake on the part of Secretary/Steno of this Court, instead of his name, name of Mr. Faiz-ur-Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court was shown in the title of judgment, therefore, he submitted an application for the correction of the name and after getting it correct, he obtained certified copy of the judgment and resubmitted the review petition on 23rd January, 2002.
3. We have considered the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for petitioner and have also gone through the application for condonation of delay. We are not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for petitioner firstly for the reason that if the review petition was submitted within time and office has returned the same with objection then he should have challenged the said order of Assistant Registrar in accordance with Supreme Court Rules by filing civil miscellaneous appeal, on the ground that name of the counsel has wrongly been mentioned in the title of judgment instead of his name. Secondly there is nothing on record to show that he has submitted an application for correction of the title of the judgment and what was the date of return and how many days were consumed by the petitioner in getting correct the name of the petitioner's counsel in the title of the judgment.
' In view of above discussion, we are of the opinion that explanation offered by the learned counsel for petitioner is not sufficient to condone the delay, as such petition is dismissed being barred by time.