1990 PLP 62 (PLC)

A. Hafeez for Respondents. Date of hearing: 23rd August, 1989. This appeal was decided by this Tribunal on 23‑2‑1989, whereby the appeal of the appellant was dismissed. However, in Para. 20 of the Decision, certain observations were made by this Tribunal in favour of the appellant. Mr. A. Hafeez, the learned counsel for the respondents has moved this application for review of the observation/findings of the Tribunal in para. 20 on the ground that it is based on the misreading of the evidence, which is apparent on record. Para 20 may be re‑produced, as under: ‑ "With regard to the first charge of persistently making false statement as to reason for leave on 1‑4‑85, there is only oral evidence of the respondents' witness rebutted by the oral evidence of the appellant himself. No one from European Asian Bank has been examined to show that the appellant had appeared before the said bank for interview on the said date. Certain letters have been produced in support of this allegation but those letters have not been proved as the writer of the same has not been examined. Even if any letter of interview was issued to the appellant or even if some person by that name had appeared before the said bank, there is no evidence to show that the' appellant had appeared for interview before the said bank. In view of evidence on record, in my opinion the first charge does not stand proved against the appellant."

2. The only ground urged by Mr. Hafeez is that Aminur Rehman, a witness from European Asian Bank had appeared which fact appears to be correct. He also pointed that the witness had produced one photocopy of the letter calling the appellant for interview, on which letter one of the signatures was of this witness.

3. However, Mr. Hafeez has admitted, that the witness has not stated in clear terms whether the appellant did appear for interview. He contends that such inference may be drawn from the reply of the witness in the cross‑examination wherein he had stated, that it was incorrect that there was false evidence against the applicant that he had appeared for interview in European Asian Bank on 1‑4 1985." This statement in cross examination would not in any way show that the appellant had appeared for interview or the witness had seen him appearing for interview. In spite of the examination of this witness, in view of the relevant portion of his evidence discussed above, there appears to be no ground to review or modify the findings of the Tribunal recorded in the above-mentioned para. except that one witness from European Asian Bank did appear.

4. For that reason alone I do not find any ground for modifying the observations recorded in the said paragraph. Mr. M. L. Shahani, the learned Advocate has submitted that the appellant/applicant had filed Constitution Petition against the decision of this Tribunal which is pending for admission by Hon'ble High Court. Under the circumstances, this application under section 152 C.P.C. is dismissed. H.B.T./1489/Lb; S Appeal dismissed.