MUHAMMAD ALI Versus HASSAN

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD YAQOOB, J.--- This review petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment/order passed by this Court dated 8-7-2009, whereby this Court allowing the appeal and case was remanded to the trial Court for determination of the issue relating to the entitlement of parties in "Succession of Mohammad".

2. We have thoroughly scrutinized the material available on record and heard the learned Counsel in the petition at length, but we are not inclined to exercise the review jurisdiction in favour of petitioner, because every aspect of the case was duly considered before rendering the judgment. The impugned order is well reasoned and the conclusions drawn therein, have been arrived at after thorough consideration of all points raised and urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. However, just to appreciate the legal aspect of the review we have enlightened the grounds enumerated under section 114 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1 of C.P.C., the provision of Order XLVII, Rule 1, which is in the following terms:-

(1) (a) any person considering himself aggrieved;

(b) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred;

(c) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed; or

(d) by a decree or reference from a Court of Small Cause, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter of evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when, the decree was passed or order made or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment.

3. This Rule provides that, a Court may review its judgment on the ground of inter alia, discovery of new and important evidence which was not within the knowledge of the petitioner prior to disposal of the appeal.

4. The scope of Review petition is very limited and a party cannot be permitted to invoke the provisions as matter of routine. However, it can be invoked in extraordinary situation, for example; where a decree/order from which no appeal is allowed. Secondly, where discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after exercise of due diligence is not within the knowledge of party. The learned Counsel for petitioner unable to point out the new and important facts/law or evidence, which could be considered for admission of the instant review petition. In this case the entire evidence and all issues relating to the subject matter of the suit has been thoroughly discussed by the Full Bench of this august Court.

5. As regard, the second and foremost ground for review is "whether there is any mistake or error apparent on the face of record", For this purpose we have minutely scrutinized the entire record of the case as well as the impugned judgment but we do not find out any error or mistake on the face of record. This Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal upon its own judgment under review, merely on the ground that the petitioner himself to be aggrieved of the decision.

6. The upshot of what has been discussed above, we are not impressed from the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the petitioner. Hence this review petition is hereby dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. File be consigned to record after due completion.

7. M.H./41/Glt. Petition dismissed.