Pakistan Case Law
2004 SCMR 1213

DAEWOO CORPORATION vs ZILA COUNCIL, JHANG and 2 others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2004 SCMR 1213
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Review Petition No,257 of 2001 in Civil Appeal No,254 of 1995
Date2004-03-30
Judge(s)Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Abdul Hameed Dogar
Authored byJaved Iqbal
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a review petition filed by Daewoo Corporation seeking review of a previous judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 30-3-2001. The core legal question concerns whether a rehearing of an appeal is permissible under the guise of a review petition and whether any error apparent on the face of the record exists to warrant review. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the scope of review is strictly limited to cases where new and important evidence is discovered or a self-evident mistake or error of fact or law is apparent on the face of the record requiring no elaborate ratiocination. The Court laid down the principle that a review petition is not competent for re-agitating points already decided, and that a judgment sustainable on other grounds on record will not be reviewed despite any erroneous assumption of facts.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • What is the scope of a review petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
  • Can a rehearing of an appeal be allowed under the garb of a review petition?
  • What constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record to justify a review?
  • Does an erroneous assumption of facts warrant review if the judgment is sustainable on other grounds available on record?
review petitionscope of reviewerror apparent on the face of the recordsupreme court practicemeritless petition

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 Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner and Mr. Shahid Hamid learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for respondents at length. All the points agitated before the 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 Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner.

3. It is well-settled by now that "a review petition is not competentwhere 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 SCM R 838, Hassan Din v. Claims Commissioner, Lahore 1968 1047(2), Qamar Din v. Maula Baldish 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 meritless is dismissed.

Cited by 11 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.