1988 PLP 1919 (SCMR)

S.A.NUSRAT, J.‑‑The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan dated 22‑8‑1987 whereby their application for review of the order dated 17‑3‑1987 passed in C.R.2/87 was dismissed by a learned Judge of the High Court of Baluchistan. 2. The petitioners are tenants of the respondent in respect of the shop premises bearing No.4/44, situated on Tehsil Road, Zhob. The respondent instituted a suit for eviction of the petitioners from the disputed shop premises under section 7 of the Baluchistan Rent Control Regulation, 1945, which was decreed ex parte on 17‑9‑1986. In execution of the said decree, the petitioners were dispossessed from the premises on 21‑10‑1986. Later, the shop itself was demolished by the respondent on 22‑10‑1986. The petitioners applied for setting aside the exparte decree on 25‑10‑1986, which, however, was dismissed on merits by the learned Civil Judge on 24‑12‑1986. This order was challenged by the petitioners in C.R.2/87 before the High Court and in the said proceedings a statement was made in Court by the learned counsel for the respondent on 26‑1‑1987 that in case the petitioners were successful in the revision application, the respondent will hand over the possession of the constructed shop. Later, however, the revision application itself was dismissed by the learned High Court as per judgment dated 17‑3‑1987. Against this judgment, the petitioners filed a review application, which was dismissed as per impugned judgment on the ground that it was filed after a delay of 34 days. The petitioners had filed an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, which was dismissed as being incompetent and as a result review application was also dismissed. The petition is barred by 143 days from the date of the judgment of the learned High Court dated 17‑3‑1987 passed in C.R.2/87. 3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the revision application was dismissed by the learned High Court on 17‑3‑1987, inter alia, on the ground that since the shop in question had already been demolished, the revision application was rendered infructuous. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners could not apply for review of the said judgment of the learned High Court until the construction of the disputed shop was completed on 12‑7‑1987. The petitioners had thereafter filed a review application with promptitude on 20‑7‑1987. We are not at all impressed by the contention of the learned counsel that it was only upon the completion of the construction, that the petitioners had a cause of action for filing a review application. Admittedly, there was an order of stay passed by the High Court in the revision application on 26‑1‑1987, which was subsisting until the date of disposal of the revision on 17‑3‑1987. The petitioners, therefore, could have resisted the revision application notwithstanding the fact that disputed shop had been demolished, which admittedly, was not done by the petitioners. Besides, no exception can be taken to the finding of the learned High Court in dismissing the review application as barred by time. Apart from it, the initial judgment of the High Court passed in revision application on 17‑3‑1967 is still far remote and cannot be reached in these proceedings. For the reasons mentioned above, we find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same. M. 1. /K‑68/S Petition dismissed.