GHULAM MURTAZA vs ABDUL SALAM SHAH and others

ORDER

' CH. IJAZ AHMED, J.---Petitioner has sought review of the judgment dated 13-2-2007 passed by this Court wherein the petition, filed by the petitioner before this Court, in which leave to appeal was granted vide order dated 18-4-2003, was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 13-2-2007.

Hence the present review petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that essential facts regarding the full payment of sale consideration and the delivery of possession as part performance of the contract, escaped the notice of the Court as a result of which the judgment was materially affected. He further urged that on the death of the vendor, the agreement to sell which was executed on his behalf by his attorney during his life time would remain effective after his death and would be binding on his legal heirs.

He further submitted that important question of law regarding interpretation of the document was not decided in accordance with law and the judgment on the basis of which the appeal was dismissed would also advance the case of the petitioner. The execution of the general power of attorney by the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.2 to 7 was not denied and this fact was also not considered in its true perspective in the impugned judgment.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that learned counsel for the petitioner had taken new pleas which were not taken by him in the memo. Of petition and also did not raise the said pleas during the argument when the appeal was finally decided by this Court vide impugned judgment dated 13-2-2007. He further urged that scope of review is limited one. In support of his contention he relied upon Major (R) Barkat Ali' s case (2006 SCM R 562).

4. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record. The memo. Of revision petition before the High Court, memo. Of petition before this Court, ing order dated 18-4-2003, arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant on 13-2-2007 mentioned in para. 2 of the impugned judgment and the grounds urged by him on 17-1-2008 clearly envisage that the grounds on the basis of which notice was issued to the respondents were not raised and taken before this Court. It is I settled principle of law that parties are bound of their pleadings. See 1 Murad Begum's case (PLD 1974 SC 322). It is also settled principle of law that even fresh point/plea is generally not allowed by this Court to raise during the arguments of the petition and appeal and fresh pleas cannot be allowed to raise during the arguments of the review petition as law laid down in the following judgments:--

(i) Ishfaqur Rehman's case (PLD 1971 SC 766)

(ii) John E Brownlee's case (AIR 1940 P.C. 219)

5. It is well-settled proposition of law that every judgment pronounced by this Court is presumed to be considered solemn, and final decision on all points arising out of the case. If the Court has taken a conscious and deliberate decision on a point of fact or law a review, petition will not be competent. It is also settled principle of law that a "review petition" not competent where neither new nor important evident error has been described nor any error apparent on the face of record.

Such error may be error of question of law or fact but the condition precedent is that it must be self-evident floating on the surface and not requiring elaborate discussion or process of ratio cination. It is also settled proposition of law that the review is not meant for re-hearing of the matter. As mentioned above scope of the review is always very limited and confined to the basic aspect of the case referred to at review stage which was considered in judgment but if the grounds taken in support of the petition were considered in the judgment and decided on merits, the same would not be available for review in the form of reexamination of the case on merits. The aforesaid principles are supported by the following judgments of this Court:--

(i) Abdul Majeed's case (1980 SCM R 504)

(ii) Mst. Kalsoom MAlik's case (1996 SCM R 710)

(iii) Noor Hassan Awan (2001 SCM R 367)

(iv) Ayyaz Baig's case (2002 SCM R 380)

(v) Daewoo Corporation's case (2004 SCM R 1213)

(vi) Muhammad Afzal's case (2004 SCM R 1348)

(vii) M/s. PIA's case (2004 SCM R 1737)

(viii) Sh. Muhammad Amjad's case (PLD 2004 SC 32)

(ix) Syed Wajihul Hassan Zaidi's case (PLD 2004 SC 801)

6. In the interest of justice and fairplay we have re-examined the case keeping in view the aforesaid principles with regard to review of the judgment of the apex court under Article 188 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to bring the case within the parameters prescribed by this Court in the aforesaid judgments. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment, therefore review petition has no force and the same is dismissed.