' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.--- This review petition under Article 188 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with Order XXVI, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, seeks review of the order dated 3-10-2006 passed by this Court in Civil Petition No,2670-L of 2000.
2. Briefly narrated the facts leading to the filing of instant. Review petition are that Mst. Ghulam Fatima (deceased) mother of the petitioners filed suit claiming declaration to the effect that on account of death of her mother Mst. Jivi, she had become owner of the estate of her mother by virtue of inheritance being her only daughter and being 'Shia' by faith and Mutation No,114 dated 26-9-1968 was illegal, void and liable to cancellation. The suit was contested and resultantly dismissed by judgment and decree dated 8-10-1971. Appeal filed there-against, was however, accepted by Additional District Judge, Faisalabad vide judgment dated 4-5-1974, by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The respondents on 12-6-1974, filed R.S.A. No,340 of 1974 in the Lahore High Court, Lahore. The same was allowed by order dated 2-6-1999 and the judgment of the first appellate Court dated 4-5-1974 was set aside and that of the trial Court dated 8-10-1971, was restored. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Review Application No,40-C of 1999, which was dismissed on 26-9-2000 against which, the petitioner filed C.P.L.A. No,2670-L of 2000. The same has been dismissed by this Court through the impugned order dated 3-10-2006.
3. Mr. A.H. Masood, Advocate, for the petitioners criticized the impugned order mainly on the ground that controversy involved in the case, has not been properly understood and resolved in its true spirit, resulting in complete failure of justice and the impugned order merits to be reviewed in the interest of justice and fair play.
4. Having considered the matter from all angles, with reference to the material on file, we find that the impugned order suffered from no error or mistake of law justifying review of the same. All the points agitated while arguing the review petition had been dilated upon and decided after going through entire record with care and caution. From whatever angle the matter may be examined, no case of review is made out. This is settled law that the case cannot be reopened on merits in review. Scope of review is very limited and review petition is not maintainable on those points which have been decided one way or the other. Moreover any dispute which has already been resolved cannot be reviewed, even if the same has been resolved illegally. In Allah Ditta and others v. Mehrban and others 1992 SCR 145, it has been observed that "even otherwise the mere incorrectness of a decision on a particular issue or a question falling for determination in a case can never be a ground for review as to permit a review on the ground of such C incorrectness would amount to granting the Court a jurisdiction to hear appeal against its own judgment. The review of the judgment cannot be allowed merely on the ground that a party to it conceives himself to be dissatisfied with the decision made therein.
5. It is settled proposition of law that the review cannot be allowed to reopen the case for the purpose of affording rehearing of the points already resolved. In Sh. Mehdi Hassan v. Province of Punjab through Member, Board of Revenue and 5 others 2007 SCM R 755 this Court has observed that "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 D failed to consider an important question of law. The review petition is also barred by limitation. No plausible explanation has been offered for condonation of delay. The same is dismissed on both counts i.e, limitation as well as on merits.