2011 CLC 381 (PLP)

IMAM BUX BALOCH, J.

Through this Miscellaneous Application No. 7391 of 2010, the applicants/respondents Nos. 6 and 7, S.I.P Fida Hussain Langah SIO Police Station Darri, Larkana and ASI Muhib Ali Mangi of Investigation Branch Police Station Darri, Larkana, seek review of order dated 4-10-2010, passed by this Court, on the ground that as both the applicants/respondents have denied all the allegations levelled in the petition and this Court has not considered the statements of applicants/respondents. Learned counsel for applicants/respondents has not pointed out any error or typographical mistake to review order dated 4-10-2010. The scope of proceedings are limited and the aim of review is that there should be an error in the order and the error is so serious, which has caused miscarriage of justice. Section 114, C.P.C. reads as under:

114. Review. (1) Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved-- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code but from which no appeal has been preferred, or (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit. Order XLVII of Civil Procedure Code, reads as under: 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 due diligence, was not within his 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 the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to 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 appellant Court the case on which he applies for the review. Learned counsel for the applicants/ respondents was unable to point out any error apparent on the face of order passed by this Court grounds not taken at earlier stage could not be allowed to be raised at later stage; as has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ease of Abdul Hakeem and others v. Khalid Wazir (2003 SCMR 1501). In the case of Mehdi Hassan v. Province of Punjab through Member Board of Revenue and others (2007 SCMR 755), it has been observed by Hon'ble apex Court that it is settled law that the points already raised and considered before the Court cannot be re-agitated in C 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 judgment, unless it is shown that Court has failed to consider an important question of law. The order dated 4-10-2010, was passed after going through the material available on record. During course of hearing of the petition, statement of petitioner Mst. Saiqa Junejo was recorded by this Court, in which she has categorically stated that both the applicants/respondents Nos. 6 and 7 have entered in her house without any search warrant in absence of any male member of her house and the highhandedness of the applicants/respondents was published in daily newspaper "Kawish" in its issue dated 19-8-2010. In the above circumstances, order dated 4-10-2010 was passed keeping in view all the aspects of the case. As already discussed above that the" scope of review is limited and the learned counsel for the applicants/respondents Nos. 6 and 7 was unable to point out any error of fact or law, this review petition was dismissed by short order dated 11-10-2010 and these are the reasons for the same. A.R.K./S-102/K Petition dismissed.