2012 PLP 953 (CLC)

WAQAR AHMAD SETH, J.

Parties were heard in detail in support of the review petition. Perusal of the record reveals that this court on 19-12-2011 heard Civil Revision No.809 of 2011 on merits in which both the parties were represented by' their respective counsel and review petition was decided after touching all legal and factual aspect of the case After scanning all the evidence and perusal of record of the case I came to the conclusion as under:

"The learned appellate court has dealt with the matter in a proper and reasonable manner. No illegality or irregularity is shown to have been committed by learned appellate court in impugned order. The status quo order passed by learned trial court on 21-4-2011 was for a period of six months or" till the disposal of suit. The suit is still pending, however, the said period has elapsed, therefore, this revision petition has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed, however, the learned trial court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of three months positively."

2. In support of review petition nothing is available on record that what new material emerged warranting the filing of instant review petition under section 114, C.P.C. which is re-produced in verbatim:-

114. Review. Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred. (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes; may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit. (2) Nothing contained in subsection (1) shall apply to a review of any judgment pronounced or any order made by the Supreme Court.

3. The above reproduction of section of law would show that review is competent when a person is aggrieved by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred or by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed.

4. In the case in hand the rights of appeal. and revision petition were fully exhausted by the petitioner and in support of the respective contentions of the parties arguments were advanced, which were duly incorporated in the judgment and taken into consideration by the court while deciding Civil Revision No.809 of 2011, nothing new has been brought on record to show as to what important question of law or facts which has not been taken into consideration by this court. The grounds on which a review can be sought are enumerated in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code which is as follows:

1. Application for review of judgment.

(I) Any person considering himself aggrieved

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred. (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference form a Court of Small Causes, and who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appearing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which the applies for the review.

5. The above reproduction of provision of Civil Procedure Code will show that review will be competent, on discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due efforts or diligence was not in the knowledge of a party and that too, if the same was in existence at the time when the lis was sub judice before a court and at the time of its decision. Review jurisdiction will not be applicable to a case if the important material for evidence had come into existence after the matter is decided by the court. The other principle of law is that party will also show to the court that he was never negligent and the new material discovered must have a direct nexus with the matter under review, which if taken into consideration will directly effect the judgment or order under review and lastly if there is some mistake or error apparently on the record of the case that can also be a ground for review, in the present case no such material hasbeen brought on record to warrant interference in review jurisdiction of this Court.

6. The appellate court vide its judgment and order dated 6-5-2011 against which revision petition was filed, was remand order and this Court upheld the same meaning thereby that all the disputed questions of facts and law were to be thrashed out by the learned trial court after framing proper issues and recording pro and contra evidence. In the grounds of review petition and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are the disputed question of facts which can easily be sought out after recording the evidence.

7. This review petition initially came up for hearing in motion, before the vacation Judge on 29-12-2011 wherein learned counsel for the petitioner contended. that notice of disconnection was issued by the respondents on 22-12-2011 for deposit of electricity dues within seven days, but without waiting for date of expiry of said notice, the electricity supply t) the premises of petitioner was disconnected on the date of issuance of notice by this Court, which was probably the only grievance of the petitioner to agitate in the instant review petition. In this respect it is observed that any subsequent event forming no valid base for review, grounds not in existence cannot be raised in review petition. It is settled law that the grounds of a review must be something which exists at the time of the decree or order and there is no authority that review can be granted because of the happening of some subsequent events wisdom is drawn from 1920 Nagpur 70, AIR 1919 Calcutta 287, PLJ 1986 SC 67(sic) and PLD 2008 Peshawar 25.

8. The judgment in Civil Revision No.809 of 2011 has been announced after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and scanning the entire evidence on record specially the circumstances that the appellate court remanded the same and this court also held the remand order correct and the evidence was to be recorded therefore, certain points relating to factual controversy were not touched. As such it is not open to review unless and until new material is brought on record or it is pointed out that some important document has not been considered by this Court while deciding the revision petition.

9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, this review petition is without any merits which is hereby dismissed along with COC No.19 of 2012 and C. M. No.51 of 2011 with no order as to costs. H.B.T./55/P???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.