P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP)

West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957), S. 8 Error apparent on face of record‑Meaning. An error apparent on the face of the record does not imply the re‑opening of the case on merits or an elaborate re‑examination of the facts or the legal issues involved in it. P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 201 rel. This is an application for review of an order passed by a former M. B. R., dated 25‑4‑57 by which he upset the concurrent order of the Collector and Commissioner and appointed Ghaffar Ahmad a Lambardar to one of the two vacancies in the Chak. The petition for review has been argued at length by the counsel for the petitioner but he has not been able to show how, the petition comes within the purview of section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act. He argues that the petition is competent because it contains an error on the face of the record. The error, accord ing to him, lies in the former M. B. R's remarks about the with drawal by Ghafar Ahmed and three other Gujjar candidates in favour of Nisar Ahmad and Barkat Ali. This discussion is contained in the penultimate paragraph of M. B. R's order; it refers to the validity or otherwise of Ghaffar Khan's withdrawal and its implications. There is no error in it which can be described as an error on the face of the record. Interpreting similar phraseology used in section 13 (5) of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Ordinance, the Supreme Court has held (vide P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 201, 205) as follows:‑ "Secondly, the power to review could only be exercised for the specific purpose of "correcting any error or supplying any omission" which appears on the surface of the record and could be detected without a further elaborate inquiry or investigation. This might apply to accidental or arithmetical mistake due to human forgetfulness, nor involving a mental process of reasoning or the appreciation of any law or the facts already proved or admitted. Any other view would eliminate the real distinction between the exercise of powers on appeal where the entire subject‑matter is open to re‑assessment and re‑decision by the higher authority, and on review, where the matter has already been finally decided and cannot be re‑opened but for the very narrow object of correcting some errors which had occurred in spite of intention to the contrary." It has been observed repeatedly and is now settled law that an error apparent on the face of the record does not imply the re‑opening of the case on merits or an elaborate re‑examination of the facts or the legal issues involved in it. The petition before me does not disclose any such error and I cannot agree to the re‑opening of the facts of the case. I would, therefore, regard the petition as incompetent and dismiss it. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.