1. DORAB PATEL, J.-The dispute in this petition relates to a house in Khushab, District Sargodha, which was claimed, when Settlement operation began, both by the petitioner and the first respondent (to whom we will refer in this order as the respondent). The petitioner's claim was rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 18-11-1959, and as the respondent's claim was accepted, the respondent obtained the P. T. O. And P.T.D. For the house on 18-2-1960 and on 12-7- 1962 respectively. The petitioner claims to have barnt of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order of 18-11-1959 on 14-12-1974, therefore, a week later, he filed a revision against this order before the Settlement Commissioner, and we were informed that this application was supported by an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay. This revision was allowed by the Settlement Commissioner, by his order dated 13-3-1974, because the respondent, although served by registered post, was absent.
2. Now, the respondent was absent, because he was out of the country. That was admitted by learned counsel, therefore, on his return to the country and as soon as he learnt of the Settlement Commissioner's order cancelling the transfer of the house in his favour, he filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court against the Settlement Commissioner's order of 13-3-1974. The respondent challenged the Settlement Commissioner's order on the ground that it had been illegally passed behind his back and on the further ground that the petitioner's revision was time barred by nearly fourteen years and that the learned Settlement Commissioner had allowed the revision without examining this aspect of the case. The writ petition was contested by the petitioner. But as the Settlement Commissioner had allowed the petitioner's revision without giving any finding on the question whether the petitioner had trade out sufficient cause for condoning the delay of nearly fourteen years, it is not surprising that the respondent's writ petition was allowed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court on 26th May, 1975. Therefore, the petitioner had filed a petition for leave against this judgment of the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed by this Court on 7-11- 1977. After pointing out that the High Court had set aside the Settlement Com--missioner's order of 13-3-1974, because it allowed a revision which was time-barred by more than twelve years, the learned Judges of this Court observed: "It appears that the petitioner did not move into the matter for about 12 years. It is difficult for us to believe that he did not learn about the transfer of this house in favour of respondent No. 1 for 12 years. In our opinion, respondent No. 1 is in possession of the property in dispute and had better claim to the transfer of this property."
3. Accordingly, they dismissed this petition for leave. Hence this review petition.
4. However, as we have heard learned counsel on the other ground on which he criticised this Court's order of 7-11-1977, we may explain that this Court was of the view that the High Court had rightly interfered with the Settlement Commissioner's order, because the Settlement Commis--sioner had allowed a time-barred revision without giving any finding whatever on the question whether the delay in filing the revision was justified. And, as the delay was of more than twelve years, this Court had observed "it is difficult for us to believe that he (the petitioner) did not learn about the transfer of this house..." vide the order of 18-11-1959.. Now, according to learned counsel this review application was justi--fied because the petitioner had made out sufficient cause for condoning his delay of nearly fourteen years in filing the revision. But the only averment in this behalf in the revision application before the Settlement Commissioner was that he (the petitioner) had come to know of the order of 18-11-1959 on 14-2-1973. In view of the petitioner's own statement Mr. Rashid did not dispute the fact that the petitioner was present before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 18-11-1959, but he stated that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had passed his order transferring the house to the respondent after the petitioner's statement had been recorded and after the petitioner had gone away. Assuming without conceding that the peti--tioner had left immediately after recording his statement, it is impossible for us to believe that he did not take any steps between 1959 and 1973 to find out what had happened to his application for the transfer of the disputed house to himself. And, even at this stage learned counsel was not prepared to explain how the petitioner suddenly came to know of the impugned order on 14-2-1973. It is also significant that the petitioner has suppressed the application filed by him under section 5 of the Limitation Act before the Settlement Commissioner, In these circumstances, we are ourselves of the view that the Settlement Commissioner had erred in Law in allowing a patently time-barred revision. In any event, the submissions of learned counsel relate only to the merits of the case and no ground whatever has been made out for a review of this Court's order. The application is, there--fore, dismissed as frivolous.