1978 PLP 343 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.‑The petitioner's Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 89‑R of 1975 was dismissed by this Court on the 10th of February 1976. This is a petition for review of that order. Briefly the relevant facts are that house No. B‑227, Naya Mohallah, Rawalpindi was transferred to the petitioner on the NCH form submitted by him. He however, failed to deposit the transfer price within time and the property was ordered to be cancelled from his name. He went up against the order right up to the High Court in writ petition. On the 15th of November 1972, a learned Judge of the High Court Allowed time to him to clear the arrears by the 15th of January 1973 pending the hearing of the writ petition in motion. In that connection on the 12th of January 1973 he produced a certificate from the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to the effect that he had paid the balance price of Rs. 8,

760. Accordingly the High Court admitted the writ petition to a full bearing and issued notices to the respondents. But eventually on the 24th of April :974 it transpired that the petitioner had failed to deposit the entire outstanding amount due from him. Admittedly the assessed rent of the premises was Rs. 294 per annum and its evaluation price calculated at forty time the rent carve to Rs. 11,760, to which was added 15 surcharge amounting to Rs. 1,764, in all it came to Rs. 13,

524. Against this the petitioner deposited Rs. 3,000 on the 5th of February 1970 and Rs. 8,760 on the 6th of January 1973 in all Rs. 11,

760. The High Court, therefore, dismissed the writ petition before it on the 24th of April 1975. In these circumstances as already stated above this Court refused to interfere and dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment on the i0th of February 1975. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. We see no reason to review the order on the same grounds on which the main petition filed by him was dismissed by this Court. Before us he has however, for the first time contended that in addition to the above he had also deposited Rs. 1,938.69 vide Treasury challan dated 14th of May 1969 and that this deposit was not taken into account in computing the total amount already deposited by him. This plea was never raised at any time before the High Court and we are therefore, not inclined to directly entertain the same before us in these proceedings. He may, if so advised suitably apply to the High Court for review f their order. With these observations we have declined to interfere. This petition has no force and is therefore, dismissed. . Petition dismissed.