Mst. PARVEEN BIBI Versus ZULQARNAIN
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN, J.--- Through the instant petition, the petitioner Mst. Parveen Bibi seeks review of the judgment of this Court dated 05.6.2014 rendered in W.P.No.864/2011.
2. The backdrop of the instant petition is that the petitioner had filed a suit against respondent No.1 for dissolution of marriage, recovery of dower, dowry articles, maintenance allowance, recovery or gold and silver ornaments and possession of a house. The suit was ultimately decreed in her favour on 13.12.2010 in the following manner:-
"(a) decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khulla subject to waiver of dower,
(b) decree of maintenance allowance only for three months of Iddat period at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month,
(c) decree of 03 tolas gold ornaments and ten tola silver ornaments,
(d) decree for recovery of dowry articles or its price amounting to Rs.35000/- and
(e) possession of house measuring 05 marlas situated in Mouza Shah Dawoo."
3. Dissatisfied from the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2010, respondent No.1 preferred an appeal which was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge-II, D.I. Khan vide judgment and decree dated 18.10.2011.
4. Aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2011, respondent No.1 filed W.P.No.864/2011. The same was disposed of by this Court on 05.6.2014 in following terms:- "the writ petition is accepted, the impugned judgments and decrees of the two courts below to the extent of allowing the claim of respondent/plaintiff for the recovery of ornaments and possession of house stand set aside."
5. Now, the petitioner seeks review of the judgment of this Court dated 05.6.2014 on the ground that in the instant case, there was no plea of Khulla by the petitioner rather the trial Court granted decree on the basis of Khulla subject to waiver of dower whereas in the case law (PLD 2013 Peshawar 12) referred to by this Court in its judgment under review, the wife had herself sought dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khulla.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner 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. 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. 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 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. 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 ratiocination. 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 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 hearing of appeal or petition but not produced. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is without force for the reason that decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khulla subject to waiver of dower was granted in her favour by the learned trial Court on 13.12.2010 which was not challenged by the petitioner before this Court and the same has attained finality. The point agitated by the petitioner has already been discussed in para-6 of the judgment under review and if the petitioner felt aggrieved from the same, she should have challenged before the august Supreme Court.
7. For the reasons mentioned above, the instant petition being bereft of merit and substance is hereby dismissed in limine.
MQ/214/P Petition dismissed.