1980 PLP 869 (SCMR)

DORAB PATEL, ACTG. C. J‑‑The private respondents in this petition for leave are the tenants of a building known as Raja Mansion in Karachi and according to them, the GARV of this property was fixed by the Excise and Taxation Officer on 26‑6‑1963 at Rs. 49,

704. Three years later, on a represent ation made to the Revisional Authority that no valid order had been passed on 20‑6‑1963, the revisional authority re‑opened the assessment of this building and remanded the case to the Excise and Taxation Officer, who on remand, fixed the GARV of Raja Mansion on 11‑5‑1967 at Rs. 1,45,

716. This order was unsuccessfully challenged by the private respondents, therefore, they filed a writ petition in the Sind High Court, on the ground that the Revisional Auth ority had acted illegally in remanding the case without hearing them. The petitioner was not present when the writ petition came up for hearing and it would appear that largely on the basis of a concession made by the Assistant Advocate‑General, the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of 11‑5‑1967. The petitioner then sought a review of the High Court's judgment of 30‑10‑1978, but the review was totally misconceived, therefore, review application was rightly dismissed by the High Court on 27‑1‑1979.Therefore, the petitioner has filed this petition for leave against the High Court's judgment of 30‑10‑1978 and the order of 27‑1‑1979 dismissing the review application. We agree with the view of the High Court that the review was no maintainable, therefore, it is clear that the petition for leave is time‑barred. Additionally, apart from the question whether the petitioner was entitled to exclude the time in prosecuting his futile and misconceived review application, the petitioner was negligent in collecting a certified copy of the High Court's judgment. Therefore, we are satisfied that the petitioner has not made out any case for condoning delay and the petition merits dismissal on the short ground that it is time‑barred. However, on our enquiries, we found that Mr. Zai's grievance was that the High Court had set aside the order of 11‑5‑1967 and restored the order of 20‑6‑1963, which according to learned counsel was an illegal order, therefore, his apprehension was that the Excise Authorities would not be able to revise the assessment of Raja Mansion, if they so thought fit. Now, in allowing the writ petition, the learned Judges observed; "that nothing hereinabove stated will prevent the authorities concerned to revise the assessment, if the law so permits." In view of this observation, Mr. Zai's grievance is mis conceived. With these observations, the petition is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.