NADIR KHAN vs LIAQUAT ALI and others

ORDER

' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---Challenge in this petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has been made to the judgment/order, dated 2-5-1997 passed by the learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Review Application No,21-C of 1997 which reads thus:- "This is an application for review of the judgment, dated 2-5-1997. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the evidence was not considered properly.

2. The learned counsel was asked whether this could be legally a ground for review of the judgment, he could not satisfy. It is relevant to mention here that the present counsel has not argued this civil revision and whatever points were argued by the learned counsel then incharge of the case, were noted and discussed in the judgment. The applicant has failed to make out a case for interference in review. The application is accordingly dismissed."

2. Mr. Mehdi Khan Chauhan, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing in support of this petition, has reiterated the plea raised in the petition to the effect that learned Judge in Chambers was duty bound to review his judgment/order, dated 2-5-1997, whereby Civil Revision No,1994 of 1996 was dismissed without considering the evidence on the record. According to him, such failure on the part of the learned Judge in Chambers was an error apparent on the face of the record/order and, therefore, the prayer made in the instant petition is in order.

3. A perusal of the judgment/order, dated 2-5-1997 shows that the learned Judge in Chambers did attend to the argument of the present petitioner, who was also the sole petitioner in Civil Revision and the Review Application, that in order to prove the relationship with the vendor, his statement as P.W.3 and pedegree-table (Exh.P.4), were duly noticed and it was observed as below:-- ".. But neither the name of vendor nor mother of the petitioner is mentioned therein. The explanation that in accordance with the Rawaj names of the females were not mentioned is incorrect on the face of the record, because the name of .. Other females have duly been mentioned. The issue has been decided by .. Two Courts in accordance with the evidence on record. It is concurrent findings of facts. The petitioner has failed to make a case for interference in the revisionsal jurisdiction."

' When the above excerpt from judgment in C.R. No,1994 of 1996 is read in conjunction with para.2 of the impugned order, dated 1-7-1997, it clearly goes against the allegation 'that the evidence was not considered' while disposing of petitioner's C.R. No,1994 of 1996. This was sufficient to non-suit the petitioner in R.A. No,21 of 1997 in that the arguments addressed in the Civil Revision by the then learned counsel for the petitioner were duly noticed and discussed in the judgment therein. It is not the case of the petitioner that his learned counsel had addressed arguments on any other aspect of the case and the learned Judge in Chambers did not deal with the same, while dismissing his Civil Revision No,1994 of 1996.

4. The matter does not end here. The memo. Of Review Application No,21-C of 1997 dated 30-6-1997 reads thus:-- "1. That the petitioner appeared as P.W.3 and stated in his Chief Examination superior right of pre- emption on basis of cognate and cross-examination was made by the respondent on basis of agnate, the portion to the extent was not cross-examined. The Courts below took mistaken view of the cross-examination and the impugned order alio rest upon on cross examination on basis of agnate, therefore, there is error apparent on the face of record of the case which requires reconsideration in accordance with law. Moreover, plaintiff/applicant is owner in state and owner of Taraf/Patti namely Sahari.

2. That admission made by the respondent on 25-7-1985 with regard to relationship of the plaintiff/applicant with the Vendor supports the claim of the plaintiff/applicant. In view of the above submissions, the order dated 2-5-1997 passed by this Honourable Court is required to be reviewed for ends of justice to avoid the further litigation between the parties.

' It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the judgment, dated 2-5-1997 passed by this Hon'ble Court may please be reviewed and the revision petition filed by the .Applicant, please be accepted and suit filed by the applicant be-decreed with costs throughout."

' The allegation of the petitioner that his relationship with the vendor having been accepted by the respondents on 25-7-1985 and that for the said reason the High Court was possessed of the jurisdiction to review judgment/order, dated 2-5-1997 ".. For ends of justice to avoid the further litigation between the parties...", leading to his suit being decreed, can hardly be considered as a ground/reason for the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court in terms of section 114 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1 and section 151, C.P.C. The learned Judge in Chambers was quite right in holding that the alleged lack of proper consideration of the evidence on the record and that, too, without any argument having been addressed by the-then learned counsel for the petitioner, was legally deficient to provide a basis for the purposes of reviewing judgment/order, dated 2-5-1997. We are not inclined to the view that any interference is called for in the impugned order.

5. In this view of the matter, the instant petition is dismissed and leave refused.