P L D 1994 Supreme Court 288 (PLP)

SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J: ‑‑Leave is sought to file appeal against portion reproduced in porn. 2 of this judgment is excised from the judgment of judgment dated 25‑5‑1992 of Lahore High Court at Lahore, whereby learned High Court. Judge in Chamber has allowed Writ Petition No.652 of 1991 filed by M.BA./5‑811/S Order accordingly. = respondents herein, in consequence of which order dated 28‑8‑1990 passed by Member, Board of Revenue is restored.

2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that consolidation scheme of revenue estate of Walipur Bura was confirmed by Consolidation Officer on 13‑6‑1985. Respondents filed appeal before A.D.C. (C)/Collector, Sialkot, which was allowed vide order dated 31‑1‑1989 and in the result scheme of consolidation was upset and parties were allotted new Wandas. Petitioners fled revision before the Additional Commissioner (C), Gujranwala Division but the same was dismissed vide order dated 18‑9‑1989. Petitioners filed revision before Member, Board of Revenue, which was rejected by Mr. Hafizullah Ishaq vide order dated 28‑8‑1990. Petitioners filed revision before Member, Board of Revenue, which was rejected by Mr. Hafizullah Ishaq vide order dated 28-8-1990. Petitioners filed review under section 8 of the W.P. ‑Board of Revenue Ad, 1957 (hereafter referred to as It Revenue Act), before Member, Board of Revenue, which is allowed vide order dated 26‑2‑1991 by Mr. Malik Jehangir Khan restoring original confirmation of the scheme. Feeling aggrieved ~ respondents filed writ petition is the High Court, which is allowed in the terms stated above. 3. . Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before us that High Court was not justified in interfering with order dated 26‑2‑1991 passed by Member, Board of Revenue competently and justifiably in exercise of his powers of review. Scheme of consolidation could not be upset on the ground that petitioners have got more land near Abadi Deh whereas the, respondents have less unless it was proved that petitioners got some area of respondents.

4. Basic points involved in this petition are as to what is scope of review as contemplated under section 8 of the Revenue Ad and whether in the instant case power of review is validly exercised by Member, Board of Revenue by his order impugned in the writ petition. Section 8 of the Revenue ,Act contemplates that any person aggrieved by decree passed or order made by the Board and who, from the discovery of new and important matter of 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 was made on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for other sufficient reason desires to obtain a review may apply.

5. Language used in section 8 of the Revenue Ad is identical to language used in Order XLVII, Rule 1(c) of Civil Procedure Code, hence case‑law on the latter provision can be handy and useful for construing the correct import of former provision. It is apparent from the perusal of language used section 8 of the Revenue Act that power of review can be invoked only when new and important matter or evidence is discovered which was not available o the previous occasion when decree was passed or the order was made o account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for an other sufficient reason. Words "for any other .sufficient reason" are to be rea d ejusdem generis with words preceding them. It is not every cause which would make the remedy by way of review available but such cause must be relatable to the circumstances as discovery of new and important matter or some apparent mistake or error on the face of the record.

6. Scope of review is, limited and can be invoked and allowed only on the grounds specifically provided in the provisions of the law and is not to be mistaken with appeal. Section 8 of the Revenue Ad came up for detailed examination before this Court is the case of Riaz Hussain and others v. Board of Revenue and others 1991 SCMR 2307 and it is held therein that power to review can be exercised where there is mistake or error of law or fad apparent on the face of the record. To find out such error one has not to scrutinize the, record or evidence but it should be self‑evident from a perusal of the record itself and can be pinpointed without elaborate examination. Inconsequential or insignificant errors which do not go to the root of the matter are to be ignored but if error has material bearing on the final result of the case it can be made a ground for review. The review proceeds on the basis of error apparent on. the record whereas in appeal all questions of fad and law are considered by the appellate Court.

6. We are of the view that learned Member, Board of Revenue was not justified in allowing the review petition as there was no discovery of new and important matter or evidence which was not available and could not be produced earlier when order was passed by Mr. Hafizullah Ishaq on 28‑8‑1990 nor that order suffered from any mistake or error apparent on the face of record. Learned counsel for the petitioners have not succeeded in showing us that it was so. In the, circumstances and for the facts and reasons mentioned above, we are unable to find any flaw or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court setting aside order dated 26‑2‑1991, whereby review application was avowed and restoring order dated 28‑8‑1990 passed in revision application earlier. In the result leave is refused and the petition is dismissed. AA./M‑1936/S Leave refused.