Review Jurisdiction
Review Jurisdiction legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Issue regarding co-ownership of property had already been considered in the order under review and no flaw or error was found in that order so as to allow review application, which had been rightly dismissed as not maintainable
Petitioner failed to point out any justifiable reason warranting interference in the order of High Court
Scope of review is quite limited and only extends to mistakes apparent on the face of record and which are floating on the surface or patent shortcomings in the order which had not been pointed out
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.
Every judgement rendered by Court of law is presumed to be a solemn and conclusive determination of all points arising out of the lis
Irregularities if any which have no significant effect or impact on outcome would not be sufficient to warrant review
If incongruity or ambiguity is of such a nature as to transmute the course of action from being one in aid of justice to a process of injustice then a review decision may be instituted for redressal to demonstrate error if it is found floating conspicuously on the surface of the record
Mere desire for rehearing of the matter cannot constitute sufficient ground for the grant of review which by its very nature cannot be equated with the right or remedy of appeal
Sanctity and finality of judicial determinations must not be compromised by mere persistence of litigants or mechanical issuance of advocate certificates
Review jurisdiction is not a fall back for unsuccessful litigants to reopen a lis but a narrowly confined judicial tool intended to correct palpable and consequential mistakes.
Petitioner sought review of judgment passed by Supreme Court with regard to determination of place of residence for employment purposes
Validity
Power of review, as articulated in Article 188 of the Constitution and governed by Supreme Court Rules, 1980 ('Rules') and C.P.C. is not an open invitation to revisit judgments merely on the basis of dissatisfaction with the outcome
It is a limited jurisdiction, exercised with great caution and circumspection
Conditions for filing a review petition are specifically enumerated and they do not extend to re-arguing points of law or fact that have already been conclusively determined
Petitioner did not disclose any new or important evidence nor pointed any error that was apparent on the face of record
Issues raised by petitioner were mere reiteration of arguments that had already been considered and rejected by Supreme Court
Supreme Court declined to review its earlier judgment, as there was no ground made out for review and petitions were frivolous and vexatious
Supreme Court imposed cost under Order XXVIII, Rule 3 of Supreme Court Rules, 1980 upon petitioner for squandering valuable time of Supreme Court
Review petition was dismissed.
Every judgement rendered by Court of law is presumed to be a solemn and conclusive determination of all points arising out of the lis
Irregularities if any which have no significant effect or impact on outcome would not be sufficient to warrant review
If incongruity or ambiguity is of such a nature as to transmute the course of action from being one in aid of justice to a process of injustice then a review decision may be instituted for redressal to demonstrate error if it is found floating conspicuously on the surface of the record
Mere desire for rehearing of the matter cannot constitute sufficient ground for the grant of review which by its very nature cannot be equated with the right or remedy of appeal
Sanctity and finality of judicial determinations must not be compromised by mere persistence of litigants or mechanical issuance of advocate certificates
Review jurisdiction is not a fall back for unsuccessful litigants to reopen a lis but a narrowly confined judicial tool intended to correct palpable and consequential mistakes.
Petitioner sought review of judgment passed by Supreme Court with regard to determination of place of residence for employment purposes
Validity
Power of review, as articulated in Article 188 of the Constitution and governed by Supreme Court Rules, 1980 ('Rules') and C.P.C. is not an open invitation to revisit judgments merely on the basis of dissatisfaction with the outcome
It is a limited jurisdiction, exercised with great caution and circumspection
Conditions for filing a review petition are specifically enumerated and they do not extend to re-arguing points of law or fact that have already been conclusively determined
Petitioner did not disclose any new or important evidence nor pointed any error that was apparent on the face of record
Issues raised by petitioner were mere reiteration of arguments that had already been considered and rejected by Supreme Court
Supreme Court declined to review its earlier judgment, as there was no ground made out for review and petitions were frivolous and vexatious
Supreme Court imposed cost under Order XXVIII, Rule 3 of Supreme Court Rules, 1980 upon petitioner for squandering valuable time of Supreme Court
Review petition was dismissed.
Commissioner CDA, relying on requisitioned report of an Officer CDA, set-aside penalty imposed upon the owner by the Deputy Commissioner CDA vide ex-parte order
Petitioner/owner invoked constitutional petition of the High Court as the (successor)Commissioner re-instated penalty allowing review, filed after four years, by the CDA
Validity
Earlier the Commissioner CDA, in appeal proceedings filed by the petitioner/owner, directed that an inspection of the house-premises be conducted by an Officer (HVC), who found that the premises-in-question had been rented out in residential use and no office was set up in the premises-in-question; on basis of said report, the Commissioner had set-aside penalty/fine imposing order
CDA filed a review pursuant to S. 36(3) of the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960, whereas the proviso to said section reflected that the scope of the review (under said provision/proviso) was quite similar to the scope of review before the Courts
In the present case, it was apparent from the impugned review order that it had not been passed to correct any error floating on the surface of the record
Commissioner, while passing the impugned (review) order, sat in appeal over the decision rendered by his predecessor almost four years ago, and took into account additional factual aspects (screen shot of webpage asserted by the CDA as non-residential address of petitioner)
Said aspect was neither the basis of CDA seeking review nor could have been a valid ground for passing an order in review jurisdiction
If at all, fact(s) suggested that the petitioner/ owner was liable for non-conforming use of his property, fresh proceedings could have been initiated for such non-conforming use
What the CDA sought to do was not to seek the correction of an error floating on the surface of the record, but was to seek the order of the Commissioner to be set-aside through a fresh appreciation of facts
By engaging in such exercise the Commissioner acted beyond his review jurisdiction and sought to decide the matter afresh essentially in exercise of appellate jurisdiction
Therefore, impugned order having been passed without jurisdiction, was not sustainable in the eye of law
Constitutional petition, filed by the owner, was allowed under circumstances.
One of the most essential requirements for invoking review jurisdiction of a Court is that important evidence having a material bearing upon merits of case and decision thereof was subsequently discovered, which was neither in the possession nor in the knowledge of aggrieved party before passing of judgment / order sought to be reviewed and further that important evidence referred to was in existence when the judgment / order was made
Power of review can only be exercised when an error or mistake is manifestly shown to float on the surface of record, which is so patent that if it allowed to remain intact, would perpetuate illegality and gross injustice
Review cannot be allowed on discovery of some new material if such material was available at the time of trial, appeal or revision, as the case may be
Matter cannot be reopened under the garb of review application
High Court in exercise of review jurisdiction declined to interfere in order under review
Application was dismissed, in circumstances.
Petitioner was unable to mention some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any sufficient reason for review of the decree passed or order made against her
Appeal was provided under S.96 of the C.P.C against judgment and decree, whereby plaint was rejected under O.VII R.7 of the C.P.C
Petitioner did not file any appeal rather file a review petition
Scope of review is very limited
Review jurisdiction is confined to the patent error or mistake floating on the surface of the record
Petitioner in person had failed to point out as to how impugned order passed by Trial Court was the consequence of error of law or without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction
Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.
Resolution of once decided issue tantamounts to "review", which is not allowed to the Tribunal and falls under the domain of Superior Courts.
Scope of review is always very limited and confined to basic aspect of the case which was considered in judgment but if grounds taken in support of 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 case on merits under S.114, C.P.C.
If Court has taken a conscious and deliberate decision on a point of law or fact and disposed of the matter pending before it, review of such order cannot be obtained on the grounds that Court took an erroneous view or that another view on reconsideration is possible
Review cannot be allowed on the ground of discovery of some new material, if such material was available at the time of hearing but not produced.
Re-opening of entire case would not be tenable in review jurisdiction.
"Review Jurisdiction", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/15089
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Review Jurisdiction"
1990 C L C 1967
Before Akhtar Said, Member (Judicial‑11) Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Board of Revenue Punjab1980 S C M R 504
ABDUL MAJEED AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS-Respondents
Court: -- Art. 188-Review-Submissions relating to merits of case, if entertained, amounting to rehearing of petition for special leave to appeal--Held, rehearing of petition beyond scope of review jurisdiction-Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI.-Review by Supreme Court.PLD 1981 FSC 290
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD-Appellant Versus THE STATE-Respondent
Court: High Court2023 S C M R 1843
KHALID MEHMOOD — Appellant Versus CHAKLALA CANTONMENT BOARD through C.E.O. and others — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2023 C L C 1955
MUHAMMAD RAEES and another — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM and 8 others — Respondents
Court: Sindh2022 S C M R 321
ABDUL QADIR and 2 others — Petitioners Versus JAHANGIR KHAN and others — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of PakistanP L D 1988 Supreme Court 382
Secretary Education Department and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE BOARD OF FOREIGN MISSIONS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN
Court: ‑‑‑Art.188‑‑Review by Supreme Court‑‑Scope‑ Reversal of conclusion earlier reached by the Court, after full consideration of the question is not possible in exercise of the review jurisdiction‑‑Only where a decision was given per incuriam (i.e. through oversight) without considering some statute or the like, that its reconsideration may be justified, but where the statutory provision had been considered and an interpretation was given thereon, merely because another view of the provision of a statute was possible, would not make it liable to review. p. 383 A2022 M L D 787
FAYYAZ AHMED — Petitioner Versus BILAL AHMED and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore (Multan Bench)2020 Y L R 734
SEEMA KHAN — Petitioner Versus VICE-CHANCELLOR, KHYBER MEDICAL UNIVERSITY, PESHAWAR and 4 others — Respondents
Court: Peshawar2016L2620
Mst. RANI FAREEDA — Petitioner Versus TAHIR SALEEM — Respondent
Court: Lahore (Multan Bench)