1986 PLP 1892 (MLD)

This is an application under Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. by which the defendant has prayed for review of the judgment/decree passed on 7‑8‑1983 whereby the suit of the plaintiff was decreed for Rs.1,10,400 with proportionate costs. Interest was also ordered to be paid at the rate of 6$ per annum on the amount decreed as claimed from the date of suit till payment. At the hearing Mr. Fasihuddin, the learned counsel for vie defendant , had thoroughly and ably argued the case on the issue framed in the suit. The Court, however, on the evidence on record decreed the suit granting the reliefs mentioned above.

2. The defendant has filed this application for review praying therein that the direction given in the judgment/decree for payment of interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit till realization may be modified.

3. In support of the application Mr. Fasihuddin, the learned counsel submitted that the disposal of the suit took about 17 years because of the fact that when summoned by the defendant to produce Inspection Report about the affairs of the then Premier Bank Limited (which was merged in the defendant bank after nationalization) the State Bank of Pakistan claimed privilege. This objection was overruled by the learned Judge (O.S) by order passed on 14‑5‑1968 but on an application the said order was reviewed on 16th April, 1970 and it was held that the State Bank of Pakistan could rightly claim the privilege. Against the said order L.P.A. No.103/73 was preferred by the defendant on 20th May, 1970 which was allowed on 5‑4‑1973. State Bank of Pakistan however, went in appeal (C.A. No.K‑49/1973) before the Supreme Court of Pakistan which was allowed by judgment delivered on 24th May, 1981 and its right to claim privilege was upheld. Mr. Fasihuddin in the circumstances submitted that the delay in disposal of the suit was not caused for any default on the part of the defendant and, therefore, the defendant ought not to have been burdened with interest for the entire period.

4. The learned counsel then argued that even otherwise the grant of interest pendentelite amounts to granting of a relief which neither is provided in the agreement between the parties nor supported by the law.

5. Finally it was contended that the amount of interest awarded, amounts to more than Rs.1,24,

000. This amount it was argued, is far in excess of the loss of salary Rs.1,12,000 claimed by the plaintiff by way of damages due to wrongful termination of his services.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the defendant at length who cited case‑law in support of the submissions made by him as above and the plea that interest on damages could not be awarded unless the same is warranted by agreement, law or custom. Heard arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties. I am however, of the opinion, that the questions now raised, cannot be agitated for the first time after the judgment has been given and also for the reason that there are no valid grounds on which judgment may be reviewed. The power of review can‑be exercised where the Court finds that the error in the judgment is apparent on the face of the record and that is so manifest and clear that Court cannot permit such an error to remain on the record. It is well‑settled law that merely because the exposition of the law is incorrect or erroneous or that the Court has gone wrong in the application of the law to the facts of the particular case or that erroneous inferences have been drawn as a result of appraisal or appreciation of evidence, does not constitute a valid ground for review. Pleas which were available and not urged at the time of hearing of the case also cannot be made a ground for seeking review of the judgment after it has been announced and the party feels aggrieved by any portion of it or any relief granted thereunder. The judgment/decree given by this Court which is sought to be reviewed does not suffer from any mistake or error on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason so as to justify this Court to review its own judgment given after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties. I recall that Mr. Fasihuddin at the hearing of the suit had very ably argued the matter but on the opinion formed by me on the facts and the law the suit was decreed against the defendant. But merely because the party feels aggrieved by any portion of the judgment, that would be no ground for seeking review unless the case falls within the scope of the provisions of Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P. C. No such case has been made out.

7. For the aforementioned reasons this review application is not maintainable and is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. A.A. Review application dismissed.