Mst. ZOHRA BEGUM and others vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL
This review petition was filed against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 11-4-2007, which had dismissed the petitioners' Civil Appeal. The petitioners contended that the impugned judgment contained errors apparent on the face of the record, arguing that the Court had improperly reappraised evidence rather than deciding the matter strictly on the point for which leave to appeal was granted. Furthermore, the petitioners alleged that a previous remand order from the Supreme Court, directing the High Court to reconsider the issue of misreading or non-reading of material evidence, had not been complied with. The Supreme Court observed that the arguments presented in the review petition were identical to those raised during the original hearing and had already been addressed. The Court held that the scope of review jurisdiction is limited and does not permit a rehearing of the case. It reiterated the principle that judgments of the Supreme Court are presumed to be final, solemn, and well-considered. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.
- Does the scope of review jurisdiction permit a fresh rehearing of a matter?
- Is a judgment of the Supreme Court presumed to be final and well-considered?
- Can a review petition be used to re-argue points already discussed and decided in the original judgment?
ORDER
' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, C.J.--- Through this review petition, petitioners seeks review of judgment, dated 11-4-2007 of this Court whereby Civil Appeal No,487 of 2007 filed by them was dismissed.
2. It is vehemently contended by Mian Fazal-e-Mehmood, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court appearing on behalf of petitioners that impugned judgment passed by this Court suffers from various errors on the face of it and deserves to be reviewed by this Court in exercise of review jurisdiction. He mainly contended that after grant of leave to appeal, the matter had to be disposed of on the same point on which leave was granted. According to him, this Court vide impugned judgment has reappraised the entire evidence which has totally frustrated the case of petitioner. He further contended that in the earlier round of litigation this Court in Civil Appeal No,258 of 1995 vide order, dated 25-4-1997 directed that the question of misreading or non- reading of the material evidence raised by the appellant shall be reconsidered by the learned Judge in Chambers while disposing of the revision petition in accordance with the law. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that direction in remand order has not been complied with by learned Judge in chambers in the High Court.
3. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent controverted above contentions and supported impugned judgment.
4. The pleas raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the review petition were also raised at the time of hearing of the main petition and have been elaborately discussed on the impugned judgment. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner instead of pointing out any error flaking on the face of impugned judgment has tried to re-argue the matter afresh. Scope of review is limited and does not permit rehearing of the matter afresh. The principle for the exercise of review of the judgment is well-settled that every judgment pronounced by this Court is presumed to be final, solemn and well-considered covering all points arising from the case. Accordingly, the review petition being devoid of merit is dismissed and impugned judgment is maintained.