Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD the applicant in person.
(2.) THROUGH this review petition review of my judgment and order dated 25.11.2011 has been sought through which I dismissed the contempt petition. The grievance in the Contempt petition was that interim order dated 18.3.2011 passed in Special Appeal No.450 of 2011 was being violated. The order dated 18.3.2011 is quoted below: Admit. Issue notice. List for hearing on 18th July, 2011. If the appellant is working in the institution concerned, he will be allowed to function. However, the payment of his salary will be considered at the time of final disposal of the appeal. The main argument of the applicant is that the words "appellant is working" used in the Division Bench order dated 18.3.2011 meant that in case appellant was ready to work then he must be permitted to work. The applicant has further argued that the said words cannot be read as "appellant has been working". I do not agree with this argument. In my opinion the words "appellant is working" meant that in case appellant was already working and not that if the appellant was ready to work after passing of the said order.
(3.) THE applicant has further argued that the words, that he was owner of the institution, had inadvertently slipped from his tongue while arguing the contempt petition as mentioned in the first paragraph of my judgment dated 25.11.2011 sought to be reviewed. This explanation is accepted.;