DAEWOO CORPORATION vs ZILA COUNCIL, JHANG & 2 others
This matter concerns a review petition filed against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 30.3.2001, which had accepted a civil appeal. The petitioner sought a rehearing of the appeal, arguing points previously raised. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, reiterating that the scope of review jurisdiction is strictly limited. The Court held that a review petition is incompetent unless the petitioner can demonstrate the discovery of new and important evidence or the existence of a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Such an error must be self-evident and floating on the surface, not requiring elaborate ratiocination or discussion. Furthermore, the Court established that even if a judgment contains an erroneous assumption of facts, review is not justified if the decision remains sustainable on other grounds available on the record. Finding no such error or substance in the petition, the Court concluded that the review was meritless and dismissed it.
- What is the scope of review jurisdiction in the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
- Is a review petition competent when no new evidence is discovered and no error is apparent on the face of the record?
- Can a review be granted if a judgment contains an erroneous assumption of facts but is sustainable on other grounds?
ORDER
Javed Iqbal, J.--The petitioner seeks review of the judgment dated 30.3.2001 of this Court whereby the Civil Appeal Bearing No, 254 of 1995 preferred on behalf of the respondents have been accepted.
2. Heard Mr. Aftab Ahmad Khan, learned ASC on behalf of petitioner and Mr. Shahid Hamid learned Sr. ASC for respondents at length. All the points agitated before this Court while arguing the said appeal have been dilated upon and decided in a comprehensive manner vide judgment impugned. Rehearing of the appeal cannot be allowed at this stage. We may point out that scope of the review is limited and no error floating on record could be pointed out by the learned ASC on behalf of petitioner.
3. It is well settled by now that "a review petition is not competent where neither any new and important matter or evidence has been discovered nor is any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
Such error may be an error of fact or of law but it must be self-evident and floating on surface and not requiring any elaborate discussion or process of ratiocination." (Master Tahilram v. Lilaram (1970 SCM R 622), Abdul Khaliq Qureshi v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (1968 SCM R 800), Rehmatullah v. Abdul Majid (1968 SCMR 8381) Hassan Din v. Claims Commissioner, Lahore (1968 SCM R 1047), (2), Qamar Din v. Maula Bakhsh (1968 SCM R 1042) (1), Muhammad Akram v. State (1970 SCM R 418) and Nawab Bibi v. Hamida Begum (1968 SCM R 104). There is no cavil with the proposition that "if judgment or finding, although suffering from an erroneous assumption of facts, is sustainable on other grounds available on record, review is not justifiable notwithstanding error being apparent on the face of the record." (Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. State 1979 SCM R 427).
We have examined this review petition on the touchstone of criterion as mentioned above and we are of the view that it is without any substance. The review petition being merit less is dismissed.