2025 PLP 1836 (CLC)

ROZI KHAN BARRECH, CJ.

Brief facts of the case are that the applicant/petitioner filed C.P. No. 2156 of 2022 before this court, and after hearing arguments of the parties, the same was dismissed on 17.10.2023. Whereafter, the instant review application was filed.

2. We have carefully considered the arguments so advanced by the applicant and have perused the available record with his able assistance.

3. So far as the review of the above-referred order is concerned, it goes without saying that the scope of review is very limited and the review petition is not maintainable on those points which have been decided one way or the other. Moreover, any dispute which has already been resolved cannot be reviewed, even if it was not elaborated. It is a settled proposition of law that the review cannot be allowed to reopen the case for the purpose of affording rehearing of the points already resolved. The exercise of review jurisdiction does not mean a rehearing of the matter, and as finality attaches to the order, a decision, even though it is erroneous per se, would not be a ground to justify its review. Accordingly, in keeping with the limits of the review jurisdiction, it is futile to reconsider the submissions, which converge on the merits of the decision. It needs no reiteration that before an error can be a ground for review, it is necessary that it must be one which is apparent on the face of the record, that is, it must be so manifest, so clear that no Court could permit such an error to remain on the record. It may be an error of fact or law, but it must be an error which is self-evident and floating on the surface and does not require any elaborate discussion or process of ratiocination. It is not denied that if the Court has taken a conscious and deliberate decision on a point of law or fact while disposing of a petition or an appeal, review of such judgment or error cannot be obtained on the grounds that the Court took an erroneous view or that another view on reconsideration is possible. Review also cannot be allowed on the ground of discovery of some new material, if such material was available at the time of the hearing of the appeal or petition but not produced.

4. Moreover, we find that the impugned order suffers from no error or mistake warranting review of the same. In the said order, all the points raised by the petitioner were addressed/answered by this court after going through the entire record with care and caution. From whatever angle the matter may be examined, no case of review is made out. Apart from that, it is settled law that the case cannot be reopened on merits in a review application.

5. Unless and until there is an error or a mistake on the face of the record, or for that matter, some new and important matter or evidence has been discovered, a review application is incompetent. The same is the position in the case in hand because the applicant has failed to point out a mistake or error apparent in the impugned order sought to be reviewed. In the case titled as Daewoo Corporation v. Zila Council, Jhang and 2 others (2004 SCMR 1213), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: "

3. It is well-settled by now that "a review petition is not competent where neither any new and important matter or evidence has been discovered nor any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Such error may be an error of fact or of law but it must be self-evident and floating on surface and not requiring any elaborate discussion or process of ratiocination". Master Tahilram v. Lilaram 1970 SCMR 622, Abdul Khaliq Qureshi v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner 1968 SCMR 800, Rehmatullah v. Abdul Majid 1968 SCMR 838, Hassan Din v. Claims Commissioner, Lahore 1968 SCMR 1047(2), Qamar Din v. Maula Bakhsh 1968 SCMR 1042(1), Muhammad Akram v. State 1970 SCMR 418 and Nawab Bibi v. Hamida Begum 1968 SCMR

104. There is no cavil with the proposition that "if judgment or finding, although suffering from an erroneous assumption of facts, is sustainable on other grounds available on record, review is not justifiable notwithstanding error being apparent on the face of the record". Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. State 1979 SCMR 427." In another case reported as Messrs Pakistan International Airlines Karachi v. Inayat Rasool (2004 SCMR 1737), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held that if all the grounds raised by the petitioner in the support of review petition having already been discussed and decided on merits, the same cannot be allowed to be re-agitated. Relevant portion of the above said judgment is reproduced here under:-- "The scope of the review is limited and always confined to the essential aspects of the case referred to at review stage which were not considered in the judgment but if the grounds taken in support of the petition were considered in the judgment and decided on merits, the same would not be available for review in the form of re-examination of the case on merits. The grounds urged by the learned counsel in support of this review petition, have already been discussed and decided on merits, therefore, the same would not be allowed to be re-agitated." In another case reported as Majid Mahmood v. Muhammad Shafi (2008 SCMR 554), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-- "This is settled law that the case cannot be reopened on merits in review. Scope of review is very limited and review petition is not maintainable on those points which have been decided one way or the other. Moreover any dispute which has already been resolved cannot be reviewed, even if the same has been resolved illegality." In another case reported as Mirza Shahjehan Haider Gorgani v. Chairman, Federal Land Commission, Islamabad and others (2008 SCMR 575), in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-- "

5. We find that although the grounds now agitated before us were available to the petitioner, when the petition was argued, yet as it is evident from the order under review the learned counsel for the petitioner did not raise the said contentions at the relevant point of time. Thus, the petitioner is now precluded from urging the contentions in review proceedings which were not argued at the time of hearing the petition for leave to appeal." Reliance is also placed on the case of Haji Muhammad Boota and others v. Member (Revenue) BOR and others (2010 SCMR 1049) in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-- "All the arguments made today have been considered and decided in a comprehensive manner in the judgment impugned. In fact S. M. Zafar learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mr. Badar Munir, learned Advocate Supreme Court wanted re-examination and re-evaluation of the entire evidence once again which, we are afraid, cannot be done while dilating upon these review petitions. It is well-settled by now that review cannot be granted on the ground that certain facts require re-appraisement by Supreme Court. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in Basharat Khan v. The State 1984 SCMR 1033 (1), Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. State PLD 1979 SC 741, Muhammad Nazir v. State 1979 SCMR 89, Kala Khan v. Misri Khan 1979 SCMR 347, Saghir Ali v. Mehr Din 1968 SCMR

729. There is no cavil to the proposition that review cannot be granted for merely re-examination of the same arguments. Rearguing a case on merits as well as additional grounds is beyond the scope of review petition." In view of what has been discussed above, we do not find any substance in the application; therefore, the same is dismissed in limine. MQ/115/Bal Application dismissed.