MEHR DIN and others vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others
This matter concerns a review petition filed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had previously dismissed the petitioners' writ petition in limine. The petitioners sought to challenge the earlier dismissal by raising several contentions regarding the applicability of specific notifications, the status of the suit land within a prohibited zone, and the eligibility of the petitioner's father for proprietary rights. The core legal question before the Court was whether the grounds presented by the petitioners warranted a review of the final order passed in the writ petition. The Court held that the review petition was misconceived and dismissed it in limine. The Court established the key principle that the primary purpose of a review jurisdiction is the correction of errors apparent on the face of the record, rather than the re-appreciation of evidence, re-argument of facts, or the correction of allegedly wrong decisions. It emphasized that a review petition cannot be utilized as a mechanism to re-hear a matter on its merits or to function as an appeal against the Court's own judgment.
- What is the scope and purpose of the Court's power of review?
- Can a review petition be used to re-argue a case on its merits or re-appreciate evidence?
- Is a review petition maintainable if it seeks to challenge the correctness of a decision rather than correct an error apparent on the face of the record?
ORDER
' Petitioners had filed Writ Petition No,2148 of 2003 which was dismissed in limine by this Court on 27-5-2003.
2. the petitioners have moved this application for reviewing the aforesaid order on the grounds:--
(i) that notification subsequently issued according to which Tibba Sultanpur was declared as Town Committee in the year 1979 was not applicable to the case of the petitioners as was held in the order under review;
(ii) application moved by the father of the petitioner was not made at belated stage as was observed in the order because for the grant of proprietary rights no limitation was prescribed;
(iii) it was incorrectly observed in the order in question that suit-land was situated within the prohibitory zone of Town Committee, Tibba Sultanpur;
(iv) it was established from the record that suit-land was situated beyond prohibited zone of the Town Committee;
(v) according to notifications dated 1-10-1983 and 30-6-1994 respectively Annexures C-1 and H-1 limits of prohibited zone were not applicable to allottees prior to notification, dated 12-12-1972;
(vi) notification dated 24-3-1985 was not applicable to the case of the petitioners and that while deciding the writ petition an important fact escaped notice of the Court that petitioners were treated in a discriminatory manner; and
(vii) Petitioner's father was eligible for the grant of proprietary rights under notification dated 24-3- 1985 which was not correctly interpreted.
3. From the above contentions it is obvious that the petitioners want to re-open a finally decided matter and desire rehearing on merits involving questions of law and facts.
4. Main aim of review is correction of errors not involving process of reasoning or appreciation of law and facts and not for correcting wrong decisions. While exercising power of review Court cannot hear the matter as an appeal against its own judgment.
5. Review petition is, therefore, misconceived and is accordingly dismissed in liming.
Review .