1. ' MRS. QAISER IQBAL, J.---The petitioner has sought review of the order dated 17-9-2008 whereby the petition was dismissed.
2. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents were not relevant to the bone of contention, which partains to the maintainability of maintenance. The constitutional petition is maintainable against the interim order passed under section 14 (3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, as relief by way of appeal or revision is not available to the aggrieved party, the writ petition is the only course left upon the petitioner, in view of the dictum laid down in the case of Irfan Ahmed v. II-Judicial Magistrate East, at Karachi (2006 MLD 135).
3. ' On behalf of the respondent, it is urged that the review application is not maintainable, as it is not the alternate of an appeal as the Court could review its order only when the same is falling within the limits of prescribed by law. It is next urged that the review application can be filed only when some new facts and important matter of evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the parties and could not be produced at the time when the order was passed. It is next urged that the application of review is maintainable only for correcting the error in the order/judgment and not for correcting the wrong decision.
4. ' In support of above contention, reliance has been placed upon the following case-law:-- (1). Nadir Hassan v. 1st Additional District Judge and others (2004 YLR 2405).
5. (2). Mst. Shamero v. Sardaraz Khan and 8 others (PLD 2001 Peshawar 54).
6. (3). Ch. Mehmood Ahmed v. Haji Muhammad Idrees and another (2001 YLR (SC AJ&K) 3237).
7. (4). Ranbir Prasad v. Sheobaran Singh (AIR 1939 Allahabad 619).
8. (5). Mian Rafiq Saigol v. Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd. And another (PLD 1997 SC 865).
9. The view laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan is that only such errors in the judgment/order would justify review, which are self-evident, found floating on the surface, are discoverable without much deliberations and have a material bearing on the final result of the case.
10. ' I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties at bar. It is settled law that the review application cannot be filed as a alternate of an appeal and the Court can review its order only on material bearing, when it will in effect materially cast shadow on the final result of the case. An application for review is maintainable only for correcting the error in the order and not for correcting the wrong decision. The case of the petitioner does not fall within the purview of review as provided under the law and the application of review is not maintainable.
11. ' For the foregoing reasons, Review Application is hereby dismissed along with listed applications.