1971 PLP 539 (SCMR)

WAHEEDUDDIN AHMED, J.‑This is an application for review of the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 239 of 1969 dated the 22nd May 1970. By this judgment, the appeal was dismissed with costs. The property in dispute is house No. H/128, Murree Road, Rawalpindi. Deceased Dr. S. Mohammad Asghar respondent No. 1, obtained this house on the basis of a deed of exchange in lieu of his property abandoned in India from Dr. Chanan Lal. This agreement of exchange was confirmed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property on the 17th August 1959. The learned Custodian also granted permission to Dr. S. Mohammad Asghar under clause (a) of subsection (3) of section 16 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957. In pursuance of this permission respondent No. 1 filed a suit for specific performance of contract against Dr. Chanan Lal in the civil Court at Rawalpindi and obtained a decree for specific performance on the 21st March 1960. The petitioners who are claimant displaced persons in occupation of the property in dispute challenged this decree in a suit for declaration and cancellation on the ground that it was obtained by fraud and does not affect the rights of the petitioners. The suit was resisted by the respondents. A preliminary objection was raised by them that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to question the order of confirmation passed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property on the 17th August 1959. The civil Court rejected this objection. The matter was taken in revision by the respondents before the High Court on the 7th May 1968. The High Court upheld the contention of the respondents that the civil Court has got no jurisdiction and the petitioners have no locus standi to file the suit. The judgment of the High Court was challenged in the above‑mentioned appeal in this Court which, as already stated, was dismissed on the 22nd May 1970. This Court held that the validity of the exchange cannot be challenged in civil Court and it is immune from its jurisdic tion. It was further held that the question of fraud should also have been raised before the Custodian and the civil Court has no jurisdiction in such matters. It was further held that the petitioners have no locus standi as the transfer of property in dispute in their favour has been cancelled by the Settlement authorities. The petitioners seek permission to get the above‑mentioned judgment of this Court reviewed. In support of the petition, Sh. Abdur Rashid, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the view of this Court that after the agreement of exchange was confirmed by the Custodian the property in dispute went out of the evacuee pool is contrary to the law on this point. He further contended that this Court has relied on certain documents which were not part of the record. It is also contended that the property in dispute belonged to one Ram Lal. He had transferred it to Mst. Kesara Bai or Dr. Chanan Lal after the 1st March 1947 and, therefore, Dr. Chanan Lal was not entitled to give it in exchange. The contentions of the learned counsel have not impressed us. The last contention was not raised at the time of the hearing of the appeal and cannot be allowed to be raised at this stage, because it was within the knowledge of the petitioners. The other grounds raised by the petitioners do not fall within the ambit of the provisions of Order XLVII, rule 1, C. P. C. The documents on the basis of which the appeal was decided were, placed on the record and the petitioners raise no objection on their admission. We, therefore, 'find no force in the petition which is dismissed. Petition dismissed.