' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.--- Through instant petition, Abdul Shakoor petitioner, seeks review of the judgment, dated 9-2-2007, passed by this Court in Civil Revision No,1238 of 2005, captioned "Abdul Shakoor (petitioner) v. Muhammad Zafarullah Khan and others (respondents)." The petition has arisen in the following circumstances. Respondent No,1 filed a suit for possession through partition of suit house, situated at Mauza Jangal Khel; Kohat. The trial Court, passed preliminary decree on 13-3-1997 in favour of plaintiff/respondent No,
1. Thereafter, the decree-holder/respondent No,1 moved an application for the grant of final decree. The learned Civil Judge, appointed Local Commissioner in order to ascertain the fact, whether the disputed house was partitionable or not.
The Local Commissioner visited the spot and submitted his report on 2-2-2003, which was brought under challenge on various grounds. The commission report was set aside and a new commission was appointed, who submitted his report on 21-6-2003. The petitioner objected the report. After the examination of the Commissioner as C.W., learned trial Court confirmed his report and also passed the final decree on 24-4-2004. The petitioner, filed an appeal on 2-6-2004, but the same was dismissed on 8-7-2005 by learned Additional District Judge, Kohat. A civil revision was filed in this Court, which also met the same fate. Hence instant review petition.
2. Mr. M.S.H. Qureshi, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, assailed the judgment under review on a number of grounds and attempted to argue that the provisions of section 2 of the Partition Act, 1893, and the statement of C.W.1/Commissioner have not been taken into consideration, which has resulted in complete failure of justice and provides a valid ground for review of the judgment of this Court.
3. Mian Mohibullah Kakakhel, Advocate for the respondents, on the other hand, refuted the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the impugned judgment whole heartedly, maintaining that the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner have been exhaustively dealt with in the judgment under review and learned counsel has not been able to point out any such error of law in the judgment or interference in the review of jurisdiction. To supplement the contentions, reliance was placed on Mian .Rafiq Saigal and another v. Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd. And another PLD 1997 SC 865.
4. The exercise of review jurisdiction does not mean a re-hearing 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 re- consider 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 rationcination. It is not denied that if the Court has taken a conscious and deliberate decision on a point of law or fact while diOosing of a petition or an appeal, review of such judgment or order cannot be obtained on the grounds that the Court took an erroneous view or that another view on re-consideration 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 contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner as rightly urged, are nothing but reiteration of the same grounds, which were urged at the hearing of revision petition, but were rejected by this Court after consideration. These contentions cannot be allowed to be raised again in review proceedings as in the garb of proceedings for review, the petitioner cannot obtain re- hearing of his revision petition. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Sh. Mehdi Hassan v.
Province of Punjab through Member, Board of Revenue and 5 others 2007 SCM R 755, observed:- "This is settled law that the points already raised and considered before the Court, cannot be re- agitated in review jurisdiction which is confined to the extent of patent error or a mistake floating on the face of record which if not corrected may perpetuate illegality and injustice. The mere fact that another view of the matter was possible or the conclusion drawn in the judgment was wrong, would not be a valid ground to review the judgment unless it is shown that the Court has failed to consider an important question of law."
5. Pursuant to above, I find that no ground for review is made out. The review petition fails, which is hereby dismissed along with listed C.Ms. No order as to costs.
Review dismissed.