2004 PLP 1213 (SCMR)

(b) Supreme Court Rules, 1980‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O. XXVI‑‑‑Review of Supreme Court judgment‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Review petition is not competent where neither any new and important matter or evidence has been discovered nor any mistake or error is 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‑‑‑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 record. Master Tahilram v. Lilaram 1970 SCMR 622; Abdul Khaliq Qureshi v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner 1968 SCMR 800; Rehmatullah v. Abdul Majid 1968 SCMR 838; Hassan Din v. Claims Commissioner, Lahore 1968 SCMR 1047; Qamar Din v. Maula Bakhsh 1968 SCMR 1042; Muhammad Akram v. State 1970 SCMR 418; Nawab Bibi v. Hamida Begum 1968 SCMR 104 and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. State 1979 SCMR 427 ref. Aftab Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner. Shahid Hamid, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 1 and

2. Date of hearing; 30th March, 2004. JAVED IQBAL, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks review of the judgment, dated 30‑3‑2001 of this Court whereby the Civil Appeal bearing No. 254 of 1995 preferred on behalf of the respondents have been accepted.

2. Heard Mr. Aftab Ahmad Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner and Mr. Shahid Hamid learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for respondents at length. All the points agitated before the Court while arguing the said appeal have been dilated upon and decided in a comprehensive manner vide judgment impugned. Rehearing of the appeal cannot be allowed at this stage. We may point R out that scope of the review is limited and no error floating on record could be pointed out by the learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner.

3. It is well‑.settled by now that "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". Master Tahilram v. Lilaram 1970 SCMR 622, Abdul Khaliq Qureshi v. Chief Settlement and g Rehabilitation Commissioner 1968 SCMR .800, Rehmatullah v. Abdul Majid 1968 SCMR 838, Hassan Din v. Claims Commissioner, Lahore 1968 1047(2), Qamar Din v. Maula Bakhsh 1968 SCMR 1042(1), Muhammad Akram v. State 1970 SCMR 418 and Nawab Bibi v. Hamida Begum 1968 SCMR

104. There‑is no cavil with the proposition that "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". Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. State 1979 SCMR

427. We have examined this review petition on the touchstone of criterion as mentioned above and we are of the view that it is without any substance. The review petition being merit less is dismissed. M.H./D‑9/S Petition dismissed.