1969 PLP 10 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 11th‑October 1968. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.‑This is a petition for the review of a judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 110 of 1966. Review is sought firstly on the ground that there are self contradictory findings in the judgment. It is pointed out that while this Court had held that there was a conflict of interest not only between the plaintiffs and the defendants in the suit but also between Mohammad Hussain and Mohammad Ali, the defendants inter se, yet it had at a subsequent stage, held that Mohammad Hussain, who was the judgment‑creditor of Mohammad Ali, was not precluded from contesting the plaintiff's claim in the suit that they owned 2/3rd share in the properties attached by Mohammad Hussain even though Mohammad Ali had himself admitted the plaintiff's claim. It was observed that Mohammad Hussain was entitled to do so as a representative of Mohammad Ali. The learned counsel contends that if, as earlier held, the interest of Mohammad Hussain and Mohammad Ali were conflicting, there could be no question of Mohammad Hussain acting as a representative of Mohammad Ali. We are unable to agree that there is any such self‑contra dictory finding. The word `representative' has not been used in its strict legal sense as in the case of a principal and agent but the word `representative' merely means that Mohammad Hussain as the judgment‑creditor of Mohammad Ali who had in execution of his own decree already got the properties of Mohammad Ali attached could invoke all the defences that were available to Mohammad Ali himself whether he raised them or not. The next contention is that this conclusion was arrived at by this Court as a result of its failure to consider a number of relevant decisions cited in support of this point as also certain other relevant facts. This contention is equally untenable, for, the judgment of this Court was a considered judgment in which all the relevant facts and law were considered. The learned counsel also complains that a decision relied upon by him, namely, in the case of Mst. Rukeya Banu and others v. Mst. Nazira Banu and others (A I R ‑1928 Cal. 130) has not been referred to in the judgment of this Court. It is not necessary for this Court" to refer to the judgments of the High Court as those judgments are in no way binding on this Court. Complaint is also made that this Court made certain wrong assumptions, namely; (i) that the suit was filed after a lapse of some 17 years, and (ii) that the trial Court had given a judgment against the petitioners. These were not questions material to the decision. So even though some slight inaccuracy may have crept in the recital of the facts of the case, it cannot be said that these are facts which would have had any material bearing on the decision of this Court. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel may be arguments which might have been available in an appeal from an order of this Court but since there is no provision for an appeal, we cannot consider them to be sufficient also for a review of an order of this Court. A review, as has been pointed out by this Court in the case of Lt.‑Col. Nawabzada Mohammad Amir Khan v. The Controller of Estate Duty Government of Pakistan, Karachi and another (P L D 1962 S C 335) is by its very nature not an appeal or a rehearing merely on the ground that one party or another conceives himself to be dissatisfied with the decision of this Court. It can only be granted for some sufficient cause akin to those mentioned in Order XLVII, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure the provisions whereof incorporate the principles upon which a review can be granted. No such ground has been made out in the present case. We would, therefore, dismiss this petition. Petition dismissed.