MAJID MAHMOOD vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI

' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.--- Through instant petitions Majid Mahmood, petitioner, seeks review of the judgment, dated 9-3-2007 rendered by this Court dismissing Civil Appeals Nos.1517 and 1518 of 2005 filed against the identical judgments, dated 30-6-2005 of Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Civil Revision Petitions Nos.2390 and 2391 of 2000, dismissing suit of petitioner, setting aside order of the two Courts below and allowing objections petitions filed by Muhammad Shafi, respondent.

2. Facts of the case need not be reiterated as the same have been narrated in the impugned judgment of this Court.

3. Ch. Muhammad Rafique Warraich, learned counsel for petitioner, contended with vehemence that this Court has omitted to take into consideration the lapse of bank officials handing over challan forms to petitioner's old age father, and petitioner could not be held liable for late transmission of pre-emption money. He reiterated that at appeal stage it was brought to the notice of this Court that no separate order for dismissal of suit was passed for non-payment of pre-emption money which was sine qua non for non-suiting the petitioner but the same has not been taken into consideration which has resulted in manifest injustice.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Mehdi Khan Chohan, learned counsel for respondent, while controverting above view point canvassed at bar supported the impugned judgment for the reasons narrated therein with further submissions that no case for review is made out and review petitions merit outright dismissal.

5. After hearing learned counsel and carefully examining the record, we find that the impugned judgment suffers from no error or mistake warranting review of the same. All the points agitated while arguing the review petitions have been dilated upon and decided after going through entire record with care and caution. From whatever angle the matter may be examined, no case of review is made out. 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 illegally. In Allah Ditta and others v. Mehrban and others 1992 SCR 145, it has been observed that "even otherwise the mere incorrectness of a decision on a particular issue or a question falling for determination in a case can never be a ground for review as to permit a review on the ground of such incorrectness would amount to granting the Court a jurisdiction to hear appeal against its own judgment. The review of the judgment cannot be allowed merely on the ground that a party to it conceives himself to be dissatisfied with the decision made therein."

6. In Zafar Iqbal v. Allotment Committee of Municipal Committee, Mirpur and others 1994 SCR 157 it has been held that "the findings of the Court given in an appeal after considering the relevant material cannot be made basis for the review until and unless it is shown that there is mistake apparent on the face of the record".

7. It is 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. In Sh. Mehdi Hassan v. Province of Punjab through Member, Board of Revenue and 5 others 2007 SCM R 755 this Court has observed that "this is settled law that the points already raised and considered before the Court, cannot be re-agitated in 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 the judgment unless it is shown that the Court has failed to consider an important question of law."

8. 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 Et, 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, of 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 rationcination. 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 order 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 hearing of appeal or petition but not produced. The contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner as rightly urged, are nothing but reiteration of the same grounds, which were urged at the hearing of appeals, but were rejected by this Court after consideration. These contentions cannot be allowed to be raised again in review proceedings as in the garb of proceedings for review, the petitioner cannot obtain rehearing of the appeals.

9. In the above perspective, finding no ground for review, these petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.