P L D 2010 Supreme Court 949 (PLP)

JAVED IQBAL, J.

Review of judgment dated 10-06-2004 has been preferred on behalf of M. Naeem-ur-Rehman (Civil Review Petition No.177/2004) and Manzoor Elahi (Civil Review Petition No.178/2004) which are being disposed of by this judgment.

2. Heard Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, learned Sr. ASC on behalf of petitioner in CRP No.177/2004 and Manzoor Elahi (petitioner) who appeared in person in CRP No.178/2004 as well as Mr. Khalid Anwar, learned Sr. ASC for respondents at length. It is worth mentioning that the learned Sr. ASC for the petitioner while arguing the civil petition for leave to appeal has addressed at length this Court and all the contentions raised have been dilated upon, discussed and decided vide judgment impugned in a comprehensive manner. The attention of learned Sr. ASC has been drawn to paragraphs Nos. 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the judgment impugned which cannot be reviewed without any lawful jurisdiction which is lacking. There is no cavil to the proposition that reversal of conclusion earlier reached by this Court, after full consideration of the question is not possible in the exercise of review jurisdiction as a review cannot be granted for merely re-examination of the same arguments. It is to be noted that re-arguing a case on merits as well as additional grounds is beyond the scope of review petition. Besides that a mere desire of re-hearing of the matter cannot constitute sufficient ground for the grant of review. (Muhammad Hussain v. Zohra Bibi PLD 1990 SC 924, Manzoor Hussain v. Zohra Bibi PLD 1990 SC 924, Muhammad Sarwar v. Asad Hakim 1983 SCMR 177, Jalal v. Nazir Ahmad 1980 SCMR 320, Abdul Hamid Saqfi v. Service Tribunal of Pak 1988 SCMR 1318, Ali Khan v. Shehzaman 1980 SCMR 332, Abdul Majeed v. Chief Settlement Commissioner 1980 SCMR 504; Maqbool Ahmad Tabassam v. State 1980 SCMR 907, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto v. State PLD 1979 SC 741, Nawab Bibi v. Hamida Begum 1968 SCMR 104, Mohd Hayat v. Government of West Pakistan 1968 SCMR 107, Muhammad Najeebullah v. Government of Pakistan 1968 SCMR 768, Muhammad Ghaffar v. State 1969 SCMR 12, Ghulam Fatima v. Settlement Commissioner 1969 SCMR 5,Ghulam Fatima v. Settlement Commissioner 1969 SCMR 247, Feroz Din v. Allah Ditta 1969 SCMR 10, Dewan Jairamadass and others v. Syed Niamat Ali and others 1983 SCMR 330). It is well settled by now that "where petitioner took up all material grounds taken by him during the course of hearing of appeal and dealt with and decided in judgment under review and thus sought rehearing of arguments addressed by him at time of hearing and disposal of appeal and wished a different decision from one already given without satisfying jurisdictional requirement necessary for maintaining review petition. The petition was dismissed". (Akbar Ali Bukhari v. State Bank of Pakistan 1981 SCMR

518. The re-hearing of the case in garb of review petition cannot be allowed as held in case titled Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto v. The State PLD 1979 SC 941) and more so review cannot be granted on the ground that certain facts require re-appraisement by Supreme Court, (Basharat Khan v. The State 1984 SCMR 1033 (1), Muhammad Nazir v. State 1979 SCMR 89, Kalal Khan v. Misri Khan, 1979 SCMR 347 and Saghir Ali v. Mehar Din 1968 SCMR 729). 3. "The principles upon which a review can be granted are well settled, i.e. there must be some new point based upon discovery of new evidence which could not with diligence, have been found out on the previous occasion. A review petition is not competent where neither any new and important matter or evidence has been discovered nor is any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Such error may be an error of fact or of law but it must be self-evident and floating on surface and not requiring any elaborate discussion or process of ratiocination. Orders passed on erroneous assumption of material facts, or without adverting to a provision of law, or a departure from undisputed construction of law and Constitution, may, amount to error apparent on face of the record. Error, on the other hand, must not only be apparent but must also have a material bearing on fate of case and be not of inconsequential import. If judgment or finding, although suffering from an erroneous assumption of facts, is sustainable on other grounds available on record, review is not justifiable notwithstanding error being apparent on the face of the record. Where order under review did not appear to have been vitiated by any error on face of the record nor any other good and sufficient reason was given for review of order. Petition for review was dismissed". Nawab Bibi v. Hamida Begum 1968 SCMR 104, Master Tahilram v. Lilaram 1970 SCMR 622, Abdul Khaliq Qureshi v.'Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner Pakistan 1968 SCMR 800, Rehmatullah v. Abdul Majid 1968 SCMR 838, Hassan Din v. Claims Commissioner 1968 SCMR 1047(2), Qarnar Din v. Maula Bakhsh, 1968 SCMR 1042 (1), Muhammad Akram v. State 1970 SCMR 418, Muhammad Akram v. State 1970 PCr.LJ 909, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto v. The State 1979 SCMR 427, Rizwan Co-operative Society Ltd. Custodian of Evacuee Property 1978 SCMR 449, Farzand Ali v. Mohd Arif 1979 SCMR 281 and Rashiduddin Qureshi v. State 1979 SCMR 99).

4. These review petitions have been examined in the light of the criterion as laid down by this Court in various cases as mentioned herein above and we feel no case for review is made out. The petitions being devoid of merits are dismissed. M.H./M-59/S Petition dismissed.