Review

Board of Revenue was aggrieved of review of order passed in judicial side during executive proceedings, whereby grant of proprietary rights were recalled

Validity

Board of Revenue, exercising its powers on judicial side, granted proprietary rights in land to respondents

Board of Revenue had no powers on administrative side to set at naught the judicial orders, even more so when they had attained finality

Senior Member, Board of Revenue, had no jurisdiction to pass order in question which had been challenged in Constitutional jurisdiction before High Court, for the same purports to have been passed in exercise of suo motu review jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue

By virtue of the provisions of Section 8 of Board of Revenue Act,1957 no such power vested in the Board

If suo motu review was to be exercised by the Board for rectifying decision of a Member suffering from incorrect interpretation and application of law or non-appreciation of facts, it would lead to an unending cycle of litigation

Such order was also illegal as it had been passed in disregard of principle of natural justice that no one should be condemned unheard, as embodied in the maxim, audi alteram partem

General letter of Senior Member had set aside a judicial order of Member (Judicial) through an administrative order

Supreme Court declined to interfere in order passed by High Court who appreciated law and had rightly adjudicated upon the matter and passed order in question within the four corners of law

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

The scope of review jurisdiction is inherently limited only to address errors that are apparent on the face of the record

Supreme Court is not empowered to reappreciate evidence, reassess factual findings, or revisit issues already decided on merits unless a glaring mistake or manifest injustice is demonstrated

In the present case, the petitioners failed to point out any error of law or fact that met said high threshold

The arguments advanced were primarily aimed at reopening matters already adjudicated, which were beyond the permissible scope of a review

Petition for review lacked substance and was dismissed.

Petitioner / Capital Development Authority was aggrieved of order passed by Deputy Commissioner, who in exercise of powers of Commissioner had reviewed his earlier order and penalty imposed upon respondent / owner of the property was set aside on the allegation of non-confirming use of property in question

Validity

Scope of review under S.36(3) of Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960, is narrowly circumscribed and is limited to correcting clerical, arithmetical or patent errors

Deputy Commissioner in exercise of powers of Commissioner re-examined factual controversies already adjudicated upon and by substituting his own findings for those of Deputy Commissioner, transgressed jurisdictional limits of review

Such reasoning suffered from jurisdictional infirmity and amounted to illegal exercise of authority

Order in question passed in review, could not be sustained in the eyes of law, as the same was contrary both to the statutory scheme and to settled judicial principles regulating the scope of review

High Court set aside the order passed in review as the same suffered from inherent lack of jurisdiction

High Court remanded the matter to Deputy Commissioner to decide the matter afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to parties

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Scope of review under S.8 of the Punjab Board of Revenue Act, 1957, is narrow and exceptional, requiring a demonstrable error apparent on the face of the record, or a jurisdictional or legal misapprehension so fundamental as to vitiate the underlying order

In the present case, impugned order passed by the same Member - Board of Revenue departed from settled legal principles and disregarded material evidence and proceeded on a misconstruction of both law and fact; it failed to engage with the statutory limitations on revenue jurisdiction under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, and overlooked the evidentiary value of registered documents duly produced on record

This Court, therefore, is not reappreciating evidence, but correcting a manifest legal error that strikes at the very root of judicial consistency and jurisdictional propriety

Thus, the review is not only maintainable, but imperative to uphold the integrity of adjudication within the bounds of lawful authority; it was compelled by the imperatives of justice, legality, and institutional discipline

Consequently, the impugned order passed by the Member-Board of Revenue, Punjab, was set aside

Review petition was allowed.

Mere irregularities having no significant effect or impact on the outcome would not be sufficient to warrant review of judgment or order

If anomaly or ambiguity is of such nature so as to transform the course of action from being one in the aid of justice to a process of injustice, then review petition may be instituted for redressal to demonstrate the error, if found floating conspicuously on the surface of the record

Desire of re-hearing of the matter cannot constitute a sufficient ground for grant of review which, by its very nature, cannot be equated with the right or remedy of appeal.

Orders based on an erroneous assumption of material facts or those made without adverting to a provision of law or reflecting departure from undisputed construction of law and the Constitution may amount to an error apparent on the face of the record and can be rectified.

Orders based on an erroneous assumption of material facts or those made without adverting to a provision of law or reflecting departure from undisputed construction of law and the Constitution may amount to an error apparent on the face of the record and can be rectified.

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

Any dispute which has already been resolved cannot be reviewed, even if it was not elaborated

Review cannot be allowed to reopen the case for the purpose of affording rehearing of the points already resolved

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

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

Undeniably, 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

Impugned order suffered from no error or mistake warranting review of the same; all the points raised by the petitioner were addressed/answered by this/High Court after going through the entire record with care and caution

From whatever angle the matter may be examined, no case of review was made out

Case cannot be reopened on merits in a review application

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

Review applicant failed to point out a mistake or error apparent in the impugned order sought to be reviewed

Review application was dismissed in limine.

The Review Application can only be entertained on the basis of an error that is evident on the face of the record-an error so clear that if does not require detailed analysis

Review proceedings are strictly limited to said narrow framework and can be used as substitute for an appeal

Any error that is not self-evident or requires extensive reasoning to identify cannot be considered "apparent" and, therefore, does not warrant a review under O.XLVII, R.1 C.P.C.

Review Application, being merit-less, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Appellants were aggrieved of dismissal of their application filed under O. XLVII, R. 1, C.P.C. seeking review of basic order

Appellants assailed the order passed in review and also the basic order to be reviewed

Held, that principles of doctrine of election denote that election to commence and follow available course, from concurrent avenues, vests with suitor

Once an option is exercised then the suitor is precluded from re-agitating the same lis in other realms of competent jurisdiction

Appeal, to the extent of order against which review was sought was time barred and could not be maintained

Period spent in pursuing review was not liable to be excluded while reckoning period of limitation for assailing basic or original order as in essence the intent was to call in question the correctness and validity of initial order of which the review was sought which had attained finality creating valuable rights in favor of the other party which could not be disturbed so lightly

Appeal against order refusing a review was in fact seeking vacation of previous order which by efflux of time had become final, whereas, refusal to review could not give a fresh period of limitation

Not availing remedy of appeal as provided under law against a basic order and instead prosecuting a review before same Court, did not allow appellants to benefit from S. 14 of Limitation Act, 1908 as the time spent could not be excluded in computing period of limitation

Appellant only intended to drag the matter; whereas, offer of respondent already stood accepted way back in year, 2021 and appellant intended to avail benefit of increase in price

High Court declined to interfere in basic order as well as order dismissing review

Intra Court Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Messrs State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan sought review against the order passed by the Appellate Bench of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan

Applicant (Insurance Company) contended that the Bench did not consider the fact that S.122(3) of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, explicitly bars jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan to entertain the complaints of policyholders

Validity

Contention of the applicant was misconstrued, as S. 122(3) of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, bars the jurisdiction of a Court (as defined in Cls. (xvi) of S.2 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, and not the Commission which is empowered to entertain the complaints of policyholders under the provisions of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, and the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997

Moreover, pertinently Ss. 125 & 127 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, deal with appointment, jurisdiction, functions and powers of the Insurance Ombudsman, respectively, which does not in any manner intervene with the powers of the Commission as envisaged under the law

In the instant matter, the applicant admitted that higher cash surrender value was shown to the policyholder due to a malfunction of a software program and inter alia for the said reason direction to compensate the loss suffered by the policyholder was issued and penalty under Ss.75 & 156 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, were imposed vide impugned order

As the Bench vide impugned order had already determined the question of jurisdiction in view of facts of the matter, thus the Bench was of the view that the applicant failed to highlight any anomaly or illegality in the impugned order, hence, the same did not require any interference in review jurisdiction of the Bench

Review application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Scope State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan ('the Applicant') sought review against the order passed by the Appellate Bench of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan ('the Commission')

Validity

Pertinently, the applicant, at any stage of the proceedings, did not contest the fact(s) taken in the instant Review Application and had only raised question with respect to jurisdiction of the Commission to pass the Order in Original

Reliance of the applicant on Circular 14 of 2000, dated September 23, 2006, was misplaced for the reason that for the first time at review stage, it was raised

Show-cause notice was issued on June 06, 2016 and at that point in time Circular No. 05 of 2016, was already in field as the same was issued on January 26, 2016, and later its annexure was amended vide Circular No. 27 of 2020 (dated September 04, 2020)

In said regard, the Bench had adequately dealt with the applicability of Circular No. 05 of 2016 in para 11 of the impugned order

Applicant admitted that higher cash surrender value was shown to the policy holder due to a malfunction of a software program and inter alia for the said reason the direction to compensate the loss suffered by the policyholder was issued and penalty under Ss. 76 & 156 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, was imposed vide impugned order

Bench had already determined the question of jurisdiction, in view of the facts of present matter

Applicant failed to highlight any anomaly or illegality in the Impugned order

Review Application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Review of a consent order cannot be sought.

Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell, declaration and injunction was filed by petitioner/ plaintiff who claimed to have entered into agreement with respondents/ defendants regarding purchase of suit property

Respondent/defendants made consenting statement and judgment was passed by Trial Court on the basis of ex-parte evidence

Petitioner/ plaintiff filed application for correction of decree as the same did not contain any finding regarding specific performance of agreement and injunction

Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court declined to correct the judgment

Validity

Only where slip or omission was accidental or unintentional it could be supplemented or added in exercise of jurisdiction conferred under S. 152, C.P.C.

Such course was provided to foster cause of justice to suppress mischief and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings

Petitioner/plaintiff specifically pleaded in his plaint that respondents/ defendants agreed to sell their shares to him and after receipt of consideration amount executed agreements to sell in his favour

Petitioner/plaintiff produced the agreements in his documentary evidence

Respondents/defendants conceded stance of petitioner/plaintiff in their written statements

Reliefs of specific performance and perpetual injunction were the basic reliefs, which required determination from Trial Court

Failure on the part of Trial Court to give any findings on said reliefs and to decide either way did not suggest that said omissions were made by Trial Court through positive application of mind intentionally

Trial Court did not expressly refuse to grant reliefs as claimed

Such omission was not a deliberate one and was an inadvertent accidental slip, which squarely fell within the ambit of S. 152, C.P.C.

High Court directed Trial Court to make necessary corrections by incorporating reliefs of specific performance and perpetual injunction

High Court set aside orders/judgments and remanded the matter to Trial Court for necessary correction in judgment in question

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

In family matter, the Court vide consolidated judgment upheld the concurrent findings of the two Courts below and consequently dismissed writ petitions

Applicant being aggrieved had filed review application through her attorney

Validity

Though the Attorney of the applicant had no right of audience or to plead before High Court, however, High Court had carefully examined the contents of the review application

On merits it had been noted that High Court vide consolidated judgment dated 08.03.2022 held that claim of the applicant in the suit for recovery of dowry articles was that dowry articles were in the custody of the respondents

In written statement, the respondents claimed that as a result of settlement between the parties through agreement dated 11.06.2017, dowry articles were returned

Respondents also produced an agreement dated 11.06.2017

Applicant during cross-examination denied the said agreement, however, in her separate suit for dissolution of marriage, she herself produced agreement dated 11.06.2017 as additional evidence during the appeal to claim that no dower was paid at the time of marriage

In said document, it was also recorded that dowry articles were already received back and there was nothing due between the parties in that regard

Mere fact that the agreement dated 11.06.2017 was not the certified copy but copy of a document would not change the fate of the case, as in said document, it was recorded that dowry articles were received back with no claim outstanding in that regard

No doubt the agreement dated 11.06.2017, produced by applicant was not signed by her but under the principle of estoppel when she herself produced said agreement in support of her claim for dower, the other part of the same agreement could not be denied by her, which supported claim of respondent in agreement dated 11.06.2017, according to which dowry articles were returned and nothing was due between the parties in that behalf

Thus, there was no error apparent on the face of record to review the impugned judgment dated 08.03.2022

Review application being meritless was dismissed.

Courts are vested with the powers to review the orders, judgments, and decrees with certain restrictions, limitations, conditions, being provided in S. 114 and O.XLVII, R. 1 of the C.P.C.

Court while reviewing judgment, order cannot sit as a Court of appeal as the grounds for appeal or review are totally different from each other

Clerical, arithmetical, accidental, typographical and a pencil slip mistake which is floating on the surface of record or, which apparently is against the law coverable under O.XLVII, R. 1 of C.P.C., can be reviewed.

Most important requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice

In review, Court does not sit in appeal over its own order

Similarly, re-hearing of the matter is impermissible

Likewise, it constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered

Power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view.

Every Court of law is under obligation to apply the correct law and if it is established that same has not been applied by Court, then, a review application in this regard is maintainable and similar is the case whereby some inadvertence an important statutory provision has escaped notice which, if had been noticed, might materially have affected the judgment of the Court.

Section 114, C.P.C. deals with jurisdiction of Court to review its judgments, according to which any person considering himself aggrieved from the decree or order from which an appeal allowed, but no appeal has been preferred or where no such appeal is allowed or by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes may apply for review of the judgment of the Court which passed the decree or order, the Court may make such order thereon as it think fit, while the grounds on which a review can be sought are enumerated under O. XLVII, R. 1, C.P.C.

Power of review can be exercised to correct the errors and the main aim of power to review is to prevent injustice being done by a Court and the key requirement for invoking the review is that an error or mistake which is manifestly floating on the face of record, which is patent and if allowed to remain intact would perpetuate illegality and gross injustice.

Right to claim review of any decision of a Court of law, like the right of appeal is a substantive right and not mere matter of procedure.

Section 114 & O. XLVII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, enunciate three grounds for review: (i) discovery of new facts/materials/evidence; (ii) mistake or error on the face of record, or (iii) for any other sufficient cause

Power of review is expressly conferred by a Statute, whose exercise is subject to only those grounds which the Statute provides and which is exercised in exceptional cases only

Judicial pronouncement is a serious enterprise, which needs not be done away with glibly

Aggrieved person cannot be allowed to raise those grounds which were available to him at the time of hearing of the main case/appeal but he did not press it at that point of time

Review petition can not be equated or treated as hearing the main appeal or revision, as the case may be

It has to be restricted to the newly discovered facts or any illegality/mistake/error which is floating on the face of record.

Said petitions were allowed subject to certain condition/limitation i.e. they shall not however claim arrears of salaries or other back benefits for the service they had rendered on contract basis before regularization

High Court, while concluding the said order, emphasized the words incorporated in last portion of the judgment (regarding condition/ limitation) by underlining the same

Later, the petitioners again moved application before the High Court and prayed for deletion of the underlined words contending that the said underlined words were liable to be corrected being a result of accidental slip or omission

High Court, however, directed that the application be converted into review petitions

Validity

Record (judgment-in-question and subsequent notification) showed that the order was actually passed subject to the condition/limitation (for not claiming back-benefits)

Respondents/ authorities had assailed said judgment and order and the Supreme Court had set-aside the same; thus, the very foundation on which the matter-in-hand was allowed no longer existed

No case for review was made out

Review petitions were dismissed, in circumstances.

Every Court of law is under obligation to apply the correct law and if it is established that same has not been applied by Court, then, a review application in this regard is maintainable and similar is the case whereby some inadvertence an important statutory provision has escaped notice which, if had been noticed, might materially have affected the judgment of the Court.

Right to claim review of any decision of a Court of law, like the right of appeal is a substantive right and not mere matter of procedure.

Section 114, C.P.C., deals with jurisdiction of Court to review its judgments, according to which any person considering himself aggrieved from the decree or order from which an appeal allowed, but no appeal has been preferred or where no such appeal is allowed or by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes may apply for review of the judgment of the Court which passed the decree or order, the Court may make such order thereon as it think fit, while the grounds on which a review can be sought are enumerated under O. XLVII, R. 1, C.P.C.

Power of review can be exercised to correct the errors and the main aim of power to review is to prevent injustice being done by a Court and the key requirement for invoking the review is that an error or mistake which is manifestly floating on the face of record, which is patent and if allowed to remain intact would perpetuate illegality and gross injustice.

By allowing the application for rectification filed by the tax-payer, Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue ('Tribunal') reversed its order and accepted the appeal preferred by the tax-payer

Applicant /Department filed reference before the High Court contending that the Tribunal unlawfully assumed jurisdiction of review in the garb of rectification which was confined to correction of any clerical or arithmetical error apparent on the face of record whereas review entailed re-consideration of the matter on discovery of new facts or patent error of law occurring in the order or judgment sought to be reviewed

Validity

While exploring the nature and scope of jurisdiction qua rectification under S. 57 of the Sales Act, 1990 ('the Act, 1990'), it would be advantageous to mention that the said section was substituted by the Finance Act, 2013 ; so the comparison of the text of provisions of S. 57 of the Act, 1990 prior and after its substitution by the Finance Act, 2013, envisaged that the scope of rectification, which was previously confined to correction of clerical or arithmetical errors in any assessment, adjudication, order or decision, had been enlarged to rectify any mistake in the order which was apparent from the record

However, the essential condition for the exercise of such power was that such mistake should be apparent from the record i.e. the mistake which might be seen floating on the surface and did not require investigation or further evidence

Any mistake in the order which was not patent and obvious from the record , could not be termed to be rectifiable

Although the power of the rectification visualized under S.57 of Sales Tax, 1990, might not cover a full-fledged review of an order on discovery of new evidence or fresh legal ground becoming available after the decision sought to be corrected

However, the failure to adjudicate upon a substantial plea taken or controversy raised, when materially affects outcome of the case, it does constitute a mistake apparent from the record which is rectifiable under S.57 of the Sales Act, 1990, subject to satisfaction of other conditions and limitations specified therein

Mistake is not rectifiable when the decision sought to be rectified is already assailed in appeal or Tax Reference which merged into the final decision of that higher forum

In the present case, relevant paragraph of the impugned order, revealed that the respondent raised a categorical plea that 10% unadjusted input tax was available for adjustment in the very next tax period which, being a substantial right of the taxpayer, could not be denied

This being a substantial plea, materially affecting outcome of the case i.e. determination of tax liability of the respondent, was required to be adjudicated upon and failure to do so by the Tribunal constituted a mistake obvious and apparent from the record, thus was rectifiable, which prompted the respondent to file an application for rectification under S.57 of the Sales Act, 1990

Tribunal had allowed said application of rectification while recording valid reasons

Applicant /Department could not point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal

Reference filed by the Department was dismissed, in circumstances.

If no view has been expressed on certain vital issues that are fundamental to a case and have a direct impact on its outcome, then direction to adjudicate the unresolved issues under S. 221 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, cannot be considered a "review"

Rather, it is a simple "rectification" of the "mistake" of failing to adjudicate the vital issues that are directly related to the fate of the case

Furthermore, the wording of S. 221 is similar to R. 1 of O.XLVII of the C.P.C., which supports the view that even though the section is titled "Rectification of Mistakes," the title of a section cannot control the power given by the express wording of the section

If the wording permits "review," it cannot be considered "prohibited" under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.

Ombudsman's discretion to exercise its power of review conferred by S.13(1) of Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act, 2013 can be structured if he was to exercise that power only in cases where requirements contained in O. XLVII, R.1, C.P.C. are satisfied.

Aggrieved person is one whose rights are threatened or being denied or whose rights have been affected by a decision.

Order XLVI, R.3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1978, provides that every application for review shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment or order complained of but in the present case the certified copy annexed with the review petition had not been obtained by the petitioner or her counsel or her authorized representative rather the certified copy had been obtained by some person who was totally stranger to the proceedings of the case at all levels and before all forums

Attested copy attached with the memorandum of review petition could not be termed under the referred rule as 'a certified copy of the judgment or order complained of'

Copy should have been obtained by the petitioner herself, her counsel or authorized representative/agent but there was nowhere mentioned in the memorandum of review petition to the effect that what was the concern of the person who had obtained the copy of the impugned judgment and nexus with the proceedings of the case

Such sole ground was sufficient to declare the review petition as incompetent

Review petition stands dismissed.

Supreme Court may review its judgment or order in a civil review petition on grounds akin to the grounds as mentioned in O.XLVII, R.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and in a criminal review petition on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record.

Interpretation of law and elucidation of facts would not be deemed to be wrong simply for the reason that a view contrary to it could also be taken or it was possible to be taken.

Review is not permissible on the ground that a party interprets the law in a different manner or a party is not satisfied from the judgment of the Court or a different view is possible.

In review proceedings the Court can examine only those events which existed at the time when the order was passed.

Courts while reviewing judgment/order could not sit as a Court of appeal as the grounds for appeal and review were totally different from each other

Clerical, arithmetical, accidental, typographical and a pencil slip mistake which was floating on the surface of record or which apparently was against the law coverable under O.XLVII, R.1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, could be reviewed

For entertaining a review application, impugned order must suffer from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice

In review, Court, in review, would not sit in appeal over its own order

Rehearing of the matter was not permissible in law

Review constituted an exception to the general rule that once a judgment was signed/pronounced, the same should not be altered

Power of review could be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view.

Most essential requirement for invoking review jurisdiction of the Court is that important evidence having a material bearing upon the merits of the case and decision thereof, is subsequently discovered, which is neither in the possession nor in the knowledge of the aggrieved party before passing of the order sought to be reviewed.

Review could only be allowed when some new and important matter or evidence has been discovered, which after exercise of due diligence is not within knowledge

Order can be reviewed only in view of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record, which must be so manifest, so clear that no Court can permit such an error to remain on record.

Points already raised and considered could not be re-agitated in review jurisdiction.

Each case of review has to be decided on the basis of its own peculiar facts and circumstances and merits, with no two reviews being the same.

Legislature has equipped High Court with ample inherent power under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. but the same cannot bypass the general rule that after disposal of a criminal matter the High Court will become functus officio

Inherent power under S.561-A, Cr.P.C., can only be invoked in limited cases when apparently there is a miscarriage of justice and no other remedy is available.

No Court or Authority has inherent power to review its own order.

Held, that grounds agitated by the petitioner, in present review petition, were the same which were taken in the revision petition whereas re-agitation of grounds was not permissible under the law

Scope of review was very limited

Review could not be used as a substitute of regular appeal which was competent on a question of facts and law

Mere fact that a Court had taken an erroneous view on the question of fact/law would not attract review jurisdiction which grounds were eminent in an appeal or revision

No ground existed, in the present case, for the Chief Court to review its judgment

Review petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Court could not hear the matter as an appeal against its own judgment.

Co-sharers had sold out some portion of suit land to other defendants before filing of the suit, although they were not entitled to sale out the common land/inheritance

Trial Court had rightly declared sale of share in legacy of petitioners to other defendants as without lawful authority

After declaring the sale to be void ab initio there was no option before the Trial Court except to grant decree as prayed for against all defendants but the Trial Court had only passed decree against the co-sharers

Petitioners' application for review of judgment was dismissed being without jurisdiction and against the own findings of the Trial Court which was not legally maintainable in the eyes of law

Writ petition as well as review petition was accepted.

All points raised by the counsel for the petitioner were addressed/answered by the High Court after going through entire record with care and caution

No case for review was made out

Review petition was dismissed.

Exercise of review jurisdiction does not mean a rehearing of the matter and as finality is attached to the order, a decision, even though it is erroneous per se, would not be a ground to justify its review

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 record

Be it an error of fact or of law, 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.

Scope of review is very limited and review petition is not maintainable on those points which have been decided one way or the other

Any dispute which has already been resolved cannot be reviewed, even if the same has been resolved illegally

Review cannot be allowed to reopen the case for the purpose of affording rehearing of the points already resolved.

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.

Where a 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 grounds that the 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 of appeal or petition but not produced.

Mentioning of word 'revision' at the top of petition instead of word 'review' is not fatal nor excludes jurisdiction of Board of Revenue to entertain review petition filed under S.8 of Balochistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957.