2026 PLP 390 (SCMR)

IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, J.

The instant Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal has been filed impugning the order dated 11.09.2023 passed by the High Court in Constitutional Petition No.S-2465 of 2017.

2. Mr. Abdul Abid, Advocate, has appeared and stated that the High Court was not justified in dismissing the review application filed by him against the order dated 22.08.2023. He was categorically asked whether he had challenged the order dated 22.08.2023, against which the review was sought and which was dismissed vide the impugned order, to which he replied that in the instant matter, he had challenged both the orders, i.e., the order dated 22.08.2023 as well as the order dated 11.09.2023. His attention was thereafter invited to the prayer clause (available at page 10 of the file), wherein he has impugned the order dated 11.09.2023. No plausible explanation in this regard was available with him as to how he could challenge and agitate the order dated 22.08.2023 in the instant matter when, as per his own prayer clause, he has impugned the order dated 11.09.2023 only.

3. Mr. Abid was then required to argue and agitate the matter with regard to the order dated 11.09.2023 and to make his submissions, to which he submitted that the said review application was dismissed without considering the merits of the case.

4. We have heard Mr. Abdul Abid, Advocate, at some length and have also perused the record.

5. It is an admitted position that the order dated 22.08.2023 has not been challenged by the petitioner, hence the same has attained finality and cannot be interfered with, whereas in the instant matter only the order dated 11.09.2023 has been impugned, which pertains to the dismissal of the review application filed by him. Perusal of the said order reveals that the learned counsel was heard on 11.09.2023 whereby the learned Judge categorically observed that he has dismissed all his pending applications, which could not be considered as an error or mistake apparent on the face of the record. In the impugned order it is clearly mentioned that the issue regarding co-ownership of the property had already been considered in the order dated 22.08.2023 and no flaw or error was found in the said order so as to allow the review application, which has, in our view, quite rightly been dismissed as not maintainable. Even before us, Mr. Abid has failed to point out any justifiable reason warranting interference in the order of the High Court dated 11.09.2023. It is a settled principle of law that the scope of review is quite limited1 and only extends to the mistakes apparent on the face of the record and are floating on the surface2 or patent shortcomings in the impugned order, which have not been pointed out. Reference in this regard may also be made to the decision given in the case of Sh. Mehdi Hassan v. Province of Punjab through Member, Board of Revenue and 5 others (2007 SCMR 755) wherein this Court has observed as under: This is settled law that the points already raised and considered before the Court, cannot be re-agitated in review jurisdiction which is confined to the extent of patent error or a mistake floating on the face of record which if not corrected may perpetuate illegality and injustice. The mere fact that another view of the matter was possible or the conclusion drawn in the judgment was wrong, would not be a valid ground to review the judgment unless it is shown that the Court has failed to consider an important question of law.

6. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere in the order passed by the High Court, which is found to be in accordance with the law. The instant Civil petitions therefore, stands dismissed and leave refused. MH/A-20/SC Petitions dismissed. 1 Muhammad Ashiq and others v. WAPDA Lahore through its Chairman and others [2009 SCMR 749] and Government of Punjab and others v. Aamir Zahoor-ul-Haq and others [PLD 2016 SC 421]. 2 Abdul Ghaffar-Abdul Rehman and others v. Asghar Ali and others [PLD 1998 SC 363].