1999 PLP 1805 (MLD)

Appellant in person. Ghulam Abbas Pishori for Respondent Dates of hearing: 28th January, 20th October, 1996, 24th March, 1st September, 1997 and 25th February, 1998. This is a review application under Order XLVII of C.P.C. read with section 114, C.P.C. filed by the applicant with a request to review the judgment dated 17-9-1995 passed in Revision No.39/95 (Qamrul Islam v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan by this Court. The contention of the applicant is that he has prayed in the suit to declare him to have qualified Charterd Accountants Final Group-I and the learned Senior Civil Judge who dismissed the suit held so but the First Appellate Court held that the applicant has passed Group-II of Final Examination while this Court dismissed his revision application on the ground that suit was not maintainable which was a mistake in the judgment to be reviewed. The applicant further contends that this Court in the judgment has referred to a D.B. judgment passed in C.P.No.D-680/85 and a passage of it has been reproduced wherein bye-law No.6(2) of the Chartered Accountants, 1961 has been referred to which provided that the said bye-law would apply to a member of institution who would be bound by the provisions of Ordinance and thereby the applicant would be deemed to be a member of the institution, therefore would be a qualified accountant as only qualified accountant could be the member of the institution which was a mistake in the judgment to be reviewed. The applicant further contends that the learned Senior Civil Judge and the First Appellate Court ignored the cross-examination of the applicant as well as of respondents' Secretary, depositions of witnesses and written arguments of applicant from consideration which amounted to a mistake in the judgment to be reviewed. The applicant also contends that non-production of documentary evidence by him was a technical mistake on his part therefore the same should have been ignored in view of the case-law reported in PLD 1963 SC 382 which fact amounted to a mistake in the judgment to be reviewed. The applicant also contends that he has cited case-law but same have not been discussed in the judgment therefore there was mistake in the judgment to be reviewed. He further contends that the respondents' contentions have been considered without any evidence therefore it amounted to a mistake in the judgment and further that both Courts below as well as this Court has completely ignored the evidence of applicant consequently there has been error in the judgment to be reviewed. He also contends that both Courts below, this Court and the Division Bench of this Court which passed judgment in C.P.No.D-680/85 were misled in respect of bye-law 74 of the Chartered Accountants of 1961 wherein, in fact, nothing was said with regard to the powers to frame any reasonable policy for holding of examinations and thereby the respondents procured the judgment of D.B. of this Court in Petition No.680/85 by misguiding the said Division Bench consequently review application filed by him in the said petition for reversal of said judgment in the said petition was not allowed therefore there was error in the judgment passed by Divisions Bench of this Court and judgment passed by this Court. He further contends that the paragraph reproduced from C.P.No.D-680/85 in the judgment of this Court could not have been relied upon in isolation to the observation made in Miscellaneous Application Nos.941/93, 412 and 413 of 1993 of the same Division Bench in C.P.No.D-680/85 hence there was mistake in the judgment to be reviewed. He further contends that there has been contravention of bye-law 72 of Chartered Accountants, 1961 as the respondents admitted that the applicant was called twice before the Investigating Committee and was examined by Mr. Mansoor Ahmad Khan, Senior Advocate and respondents also appointed two Advocates in the Investigating Committee which fact was contravention of bye-law 72 of Chartered Accountants, 1961 as Committee was to be constituted from the members of the Institution and not from outside hence there was mistake in the judgment to be reviewed. The applicant further submits that the code system adopted by the respondents in the examination is not in accordance with law therefore this Court fell into error in holding that the applicant has no right to challenge the code system. He also contends that the judgment has referred to a decision reported in AIR 1925 Allahabad 253(2) without informing the applicant hence there was mistake in the judgment though the said citation was quoted before the trial Court which Court held that the said cited case was not applicable and distinguishable to the facts of instant case. The applicant further submits that he approached the respondents for settlement and for getting his rights but the respondents did not pay heed to his grievances hence he approached the Court for grant of relief by way of filing suit. He further submits that there is nothing in law which prohibits the respondents from permitting him to make inspection of marks obtained by him therefore such observation in the judgment to be reviewed was a serious mistake. He further contends that the passage of judgment of C.P. No.D-680/85 reproduced in the judgment to be reviewed was also produced in Suit No.518/85 filed by him and on the basis of said observations the suit was dismissed against which Appeal No.54/95 was preferred by him which was heard and disposed of by Additional District Judge, Karachi-South, and the judgment of the trial Court was set aside and suit was remanded to the trial Court therefore there was a mistake in the judgment to be reviewed. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the applicant has not made out a case for review and, in fact, parties led their evidence before the trial Court and after hearing the parties and their counsel judgment was pronounced by both Courts below on merits and this Court dismissed the revision as per judgment dated 17-9-1995 as per reasons mentioned therein. Before giving the reason for the disposal of review I would like to state that the contention raised by the applicant have been reproduced in his verbatim in this order therefore the same have not been put in a sequence as it should have been in order to give no chance to the applicant that his contentions were not taken into consideration. Order 47, C.P.C. provides that an aggrieved person can apply for review of judgment or an order when there has been a 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 was made or there has been some mistake or error on the face of record or for any other sufficient reason. On perusal of the arguments advanced by the applicant it would appear that conditions prescribed for fillng review have not been shown to exist in the judgment asked to be reviewed. In fact, the applicant has stated that the decision given by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Additional District Judge and by this Court were wrong on the basis of evidence whereas review would lie only for correcting errors and mistakes apparent on the face of record. The applicant failed to produce documentary evidence before the learned Senior Civil Judge in support of his contention consequently suit and appeal were dismissed and now he has argued that the same was technical mistake hence the same be ignored which cannot be said to be a mistake in law or technical error so as to review the judgment passed on the basis of evidence produced in the suit filed by the applicant which was held to be not maintainable for the relief asked for in the plaint. Besides it would be seen that the applicant has asked this Court to review the judgment of learned Division Bench of this Court which this Court even otherwise would not be competent to do. The case-law cited by the applicant being not applicable-to the facts of the case was not necessary to be discussed in the judgment Even otherwise, wrong decision by itself cannot be bass for review as the same could not be termed to be error in law The two Courts below gave concurrent findings consequently revisionsal jurisdiction being limited could not have interfered with, unless a strong case for interference in the revision was to be made out. The revision was dismissed as said above because the suit was found to be not maintainable for the relief asked for by the applicant. Nothing has been shown by the applicant that there has been mistake or error apparent on the face of record whereby the judgment passed by this Court could be reviewed. In the circumstances no case for review is made out consequently this review application is dismissed. A.A./Q-13/K ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Review dismissed.