1997 PLP 1832 (MLD)

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had pre‑empted a sale which was affected through Mutation No.3409 attested on 26‑9‑1990 purportedly to be that of mortgage. The defendant contested the suit on variety of grounds which reflected in his written statement. The parties were put to trial by the learned Civil Judge and after recording of evidence, suit of the plaintiff was decreed on 26‑7‑1993. Not contented with the verdict of the trial Court, the defendant‑vendee preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Lakci, but to his hard‑luck the same was dismissed on 9‑1‑1995. Eventually, he invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under section 115, C.P.C. through Civil Revision No.50 of 1995. His revision was accepted mainly on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to establish the Talbs as required by section 13 of the N.‑W.F.P. Pre‑emption Act, 1987. The findings were based on the strength of authorities which reflect in 1995 CLC 1077, 1996 SCMR 346, 1994 MLD 2325, 1992 SCMR 1780 and 1996 SCMR 294.

3. It was neither contended in the instant review petition nor during the course of arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner that there is "any mistake or error apparent on the face of record" within the meanings of Order XLVII, C.P.C. The only grievance which reflect in the grounds of review petition is that the case‑law referred above was not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and thus he has tried to stretch the umbrella of "other sufficient reason" to his case.

4. It will be appropriate to reproduce Order XLVII, C.P.C. which reads as, under;-- "

1. Application for review of Judgment ‑‑(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved‑‑‑ (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of the due diligence, was not within the knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record, or for airy other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment of the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant,' or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review."

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has tried to re‑open the case under the garb of this review petition. When he was confronted with this proposition of law that review is, by its very nature, not an appeal or a re?hearing merely on the ground that one party or another conceives himself to be dissatisfied with the decision but that it should only be granted for some sufficient cause skin to those mentioned in Order XLVII, C.P.C., the provision whereof incorporates the principles upon which review was usually granted by Court, he had no plausible explanation to furnish.

6. While deciding the revision petition the Court had gone into the depth or evidence land pleadings of the parties, which fact is evident from the contents of the judgment and thus a party cannot be permitted to call upon for the re‑appraisal of evidence. The answer to the grievances of the petitioner, referred above, is available in PLD 1979 Supreme Court 741 ' e' wherein it has been held as follows:‑‑‑ "Review. ‑‑‑Grounds‑‑‑Words "apparent on face of record" ‑‑‑Error in order to be a ground for review‑‑‑Must be apparent on face of record, i.e. so manifest, so clear as could not be permitted by any Court to remain, on record‑‑‑Such error may be an error of fact or of law but must be self‑evident and floating on surface and not requiring any elaborate discussion or process or ratiocination‑‑‑ Contentions that exposition of law is incorrect or erroneous or that Court has gone wrong m application of law to facts of Particular case or that erroneous inferences have been drawn as result of re‑appraisal or appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Held: Do not constitute valid ground for review. "

6. In light of the judgment of Supreme Court, referred above, this review petition is devoid of any, substance which is hereby dismissed in liming. A.A./2024/P ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.