2005 PLP 2395 (YLR)

Facts necessary for the disposal of this civil revision are that one Mst. Sardaran Bibi had filed a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 against respondents Nos.1 and 2 others for possession of portion of Ahata No.108 wherefrom she was allegedly dispossessed by them without due course of law and for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with her possession over the remaining portion of that Ahata.

2. Respondent No.1 and his co-defendants made a statement in that suit that they had neither dispossessed Mst. Sardaran Bibi from any portion of the Ahata in question nor they intend to interfere with her possession over the same. In view thereof, Mst. Sardaran Bibi had withdrawn that suit on 22-11-1990. Thereafter, on 29-11-1990, respondents No.1 and his co-defendants had allegedly, illegally dispossessed Mst. Sardaran Bibi from the said Ahata whereupon she filed an application for taking action against them for violating the undertaking given by them and for restoration of possession of the Ahata.

3. Said application was opposed by respondent No.1 and his co-defendants. Issues on the same were framed. However, before the evidence could be recorded, Mst. Sardaran Bibi died.

4. At that juncture, the petitioner came up with an application under section 146, C.P.C. alleging that Mst. Sardaran Bibi had assigned the decree to him, hence, he was impleaded and substituted in the proceedings vice Mst. Sardaran Bibi. Alter recording evidence, said application was accepted by the trial Court on 23-11-1994 and the respondents were directed to hand over the possession of the Ahata in question to the petitioner.

5. On appeal by respondent No.1, said order of the trial Court was set aside by Additional District Judge, Arif wala vide judgment, dated 16-12-1997. 6 Petitioner filed a review application against the aforesaid judgment which was dismissed on 11-9-2001.

7. In this Civil revision, petition has assailed the order whereby review application was dismissed.

8. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that:-- (i) respondent did not file any appeal against the interim order, dated 18-11-1992 whereby petitioner's application under section 146, C.P.C. was accepted and he was substituted in place of Mst. Sardaran Bibi hence aforesaid order had attained finality and therefore could not have been attacked in the appeal filed against another order passed on 23-11-1994. (ii) the suit was withdrawn by the original applicant Mst. Sardaran Bibi on the undertaking of respondent No.1 and his co-defendants, therefore, as per law laid down in PLD 1982 Lahore 459, the said undertaking having acted upon by the Court amounted to decree of permanent injunction and ignoring of the said authority by the Appellate Court was an error apparent on the face of the judgment and (iii) that if it be assumed that order, dated 22-11-1990 whereby suit of Mst. Sardaran Bibi was dismissed as withdrawn did not amount to a decree, as was held by the Appellate Court, in that event application of Mst. Sardaran Bibi for restoration of possession was not an execution application and order passed thereon by the trial Court on 23-11-1994 was not appealable, hence, appeal was not competent.

9. Civil revision is opposed by the learned counsel for respondent.

10. Arguments heard. Civil revision and its annexures perused.

11. A perusal of the judgment, which was sought to be reviewed reveals that arguments of the petitioner's counsel which are stated in the preceding paras. were also agitated before the Appellate Court and they were rejected with plausible reasoning. Judgment referred by the petitioner's counsel viz PLD 1982 Lahore 459 was also considered and was held not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.

12. From the contentions of petitioner's counsel at the most, the case was of misapplication of law, violation of statutory provisions and misinterpretation of the authority referred before the learned Appellate Court, which did not amount to any mistake-error or omission in the judgment under review. It was rightly observed in the impugned order that a wrong decision by itself could not be made basis for review as it is not an error, as the Court having jurisdiction can decide rightly or wrongly. Review jurisdiction could be invoked for the purpose of correcting errors and not for correcting wrong decisions as while exercising power of review, the Court could not hear the matter as an appeal or revision against its own judgment.

13. There is no legal jurisdictional infirmity in the impugned order, dated 11-9-2001 whereby review application of the petitioner was dismissed, hence, this civil revision being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. M.I./A-228/L Revision dismissed.