2005 PLP 1733 (CLC)

The petitioner has filed this review petition against the judgment dated 10-5-2005 passed in Civil Revision No.966 of 2005 on the ground IA that the documents in question have been recovered alter the judgment of this Court which at are pages Nos.29 and 30 of this review petition.

2. The learned counsel of the petitioner has heavily relied upon the following portions of the aforesaid documents:-- He further submits that this Court failed to consider the findings on Issue No.1 and did not advert to the consenting written statement filed by respondents Nos.2 and 3 and also portion of evidence of Muhammad Siddique P.W.5, which is to the following effect:-- He further submits that on the basis of aforesaid misread and discovery of documents, review petition fulfils the requirements mentioned in Order XLVII, rule 1, C.P.C.

3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record.

4. The learned counsel of the petitioner failed to bring the sufficient material on the record that the aforesaid documents were not available to the petitioner at the time, when the petitioner filed suit against the respondents, therefore, the review petition cannot be accepted at this stage on the aforesaid documents. It is settled proposition of law that the petitioner is not entitled to file review petition on discovery of new and important matter or evidence according to his convenience and pleasure, therefore, these documents cannot be considered at belated stage, law of limitation has to be strictly followed as per law laid down by this Court in Fazal Din and others v. Barkat Bibi PLD 1978 Lah. 1016. It is also settled principle of law that discovery of new and important matter or evidence, there must be diligence on the part of the party concerned which is essentially a question of fact as per law laid down in M.D. Yakur Sardar and others v. Mazu Bibi and others 1970 DLC

434. There are certain parameters prescribed by the superior Courts while interpreting Order XLVII, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. and laid down certain conditions qua the discovery of the documents and knowledge of the petitioner, which are not available in the present case. The petitioner has filed an application for review after the judgment passed by this Court in revision petition on 10-5-2005, along with aforesaid documents. Meaning thereby, it is admitted that these documents were not produced by the petitioner along with the suit when the suit was filed and also did not attach the same along with grounds of appeal before the First Appellate Court as well as along with the memorandum of revision petition and even no ground was taken with regard to these documents in the aforesaid grounds of appeal and revision, therefore, review petition is liable to be dismissed as per law laid down in Rasab Khan and another v. Abdul Ghani and 4 others 1986 CLC 1400. The other contention of learned counsel of petitioner is also not sustainable in the eye of law as the petitioner's counsel wants re-hearing/re-opening of the matter under the garb of review petition, which is not permissible in the eye or law. In arriving to this conclusion, I am fortified by the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- Haji Nawab Din's case 1973 SCMR 143; Zafrullah's case 1975 SCMR 473; Abdul Majid's case 1980 SCMR 504; Mst. Kalsoom Malik's case 1996 SCMR 710; Mian Rafiq Saighal's case 1997 SCMR 685; Noor Hussain Awan's case 2001 SCMR 367; Ayyaz Baig's case 2002 SCMR 380; Daewoo Corporation's case 2004 SCMR 1213; Syed Shaukat Igbal's case 2004 SCMR 1315; Muhammad Afzal's case 2004 SCMR 1248; Messrs Pak. International Airline's case 2004 SCMR 1737; Sh. Muhammad Amjad's case PLD 2004 SC 32; Syed Wajihul Hassan's case PLD 2004 SC 801 and Sahib Khan's case 1997 MLD 1832. It is pertinent to mention here that findings on Issue No.1 are approved and reaffirmed/upheld by this Court in the impugned judgment; therefore, contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner has no force, which is not in consonance with the impugned judgment and law laid down in the aforesaid judgments. In view of what has been discussed above, this review petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. H.B.T./R-147/L Review petition dismissed.