MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.-The petitioner seeks review of the judgment dated 14-4-2004 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing Civil Revision No,682-D of 2002 filed by the -petitioners.
2. The facts in brief are that Dr. Abdul Wahid (deceased) respondent No,7 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against, the petitioners as well as respondents. The petitioners contested the suit by filing written statement and the learned trial Court after framing of issues and recording of evidence, vide judgment dated 21-9-199,4 dismissed the same in terms of its findings under Issues Nos.4, 6, 8 and 10. Against the said judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, Dr. Abdul Wahid filed an appeal which was accepted by learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh on 20-12-2000 and the case was remanded to the learned trial Court with the direction to implead Abdul Ghafoor, Nabi Bakhsh, Muhammad Ismail, Noor Muhammad and Roshan as defendants and thereafter to decide the suit afresh in accordance with law. Against the above mentioned judgment of remand the petitioners filed Civil revision but the same was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Bench through the judgment dated 14-4-2004 holding that impleadment of new defendants was justified and so the remand order did not suffer from any illegality.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that this Court while agreeing with the findings of the learned Additional District Judge failed to take notice of the fact that same was violative of section 99, C.P.C., inasmuch as the learned Additional District Judge while remanding the case ignored the fact that the learned trial Court dismissed the suit after recording and discussing the entire evidence on record and rendered its decision on all the issues, whereas, the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was set aside by the learned Additional District Judge without any reasoning whatsoever.
4, We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners but are not persuaded to agree with the same, as it would amount to rehearing, whereas, scope of review is limited and the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in a recent judgment "Abdul Rouf and others v. Qutab Khan and others" 2006 SCM R 1574, while dilating upon the scope of review has observed as under ' "Review petition is not competent, where neither any new and important matter nor evidence has been discovered nor is any mistake or error apparent on the face of 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. Orders based on erroneous assumption of material facts or without adverting to a provision of law or a departure from undisputed construction of law and the Constitution, may amount to error apparent on the face of record. Error, on the other hand, must not only be apparent, but must also have a material bearing on the fate of case and be not of inconsequential import. If judgment or findings, although suffering from an .
Erroneous assumption of facts, is sustainable on other grounds available on record, review would not be justifiable notwithstanding error being apparent on the face of record. Where order under review does not appear to have been vitiated by any error on the face of record nor any other good and sufficient reason is given for review of order, then petition for review would not be competent."
' The case of "Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, through Chairman v. Bashir Ahmad Khan" PLD 1997 SC 280 is also to the same effect.
5. The judgment under review is very much clear, wherein, all the points agitated before him have been answered by the learned Single Judge, and thus to say that the learned Single Judge, omitted to take notice of the points raised by the petitioners before him, is not correct. Even otherwise, it was petitioner's own case before the learned trial Court that suit was not maintainable in the absence of some necessary parties and by allowing application of the respondents to implead the relevant persons as party, the learned Additional District Judge/appellate Court has only removed the lacunae pointed out by the learned trial Court under Issue No,6 in order to avoid further litigation, especially with reference to section 12(2), C.P.C. Further we find that through the remand order, the learned Appellate Court has kept the matter open on all the other issues j as such the learned trial Court would be free to decide all the issues afresh, including the question of jurisdiction of civil Court to try the suit as well as the question of limitation in terms of Issues Nos.4 and 5 and thus no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by the learned Appellate Court while remanding the case. Resultantly, we find no force in this review application which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Review