1. ' MRS, SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J.---Through instant petition the petitioner sought for setting aside of impugned orders dated 22-12-2005 made by Qazi Kalat and dated 30-3-2006 made by Majlis- eShoora being contrary to law and facts, further suit cannot be decided by the court on basis of inspection conducted by the Presiding Officer. Further, as the decree was a consent decree, therefore, the order was neither appealable, nor revisable or reviewable; as such the appellate and the trial courts have made an error.
2. ' As per record the suit filed by the petitioner was decreed with consent of the parties through order dated 28-9-2004 by the Qazi Kalat. Thereafter, on 28-10-2004 the respondent filed an application for review of the order dated 28-9-2004, contending therein that as at south of property in question there is a public way, the only passage for general public, thus, prayed that in decree amendment be made to this effect while writing down the same. This application was allowed through order made on 11-11-2004 by Qazi Kalat. Whereupon the petitioner filed an application for setting aside of ex parte order which was also rejected through order dated 1-12-2004. Feeling aggrieved of the same he approached this court. His petition was decided through order made on 14-10-2005, whereby both the orders dated 11-11-2004 and 1-12-2004 were set aside, while the case was remanded to the trial court with direction to decide the application strictly in accordance with law and pass a speaking judgment. On remand of the case the trial court decided the application for review through order made on 22-12-2005, thereby allowing the same. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was decided through order dated 30-3-2006 thereby upholding the order of the trial court. The petitioner still feeling aggrieved preferred present petition seeking setting aside of both orders and decree of his suit.
3. ' The petitioner is aggrieved of order of trial court whereby the application for review of judgment was allowed, while amendment was made in decree dated 28-9-2004. It was held by the trial court that as the petition writer has after cutting word i.e, public passage, written after word without signing it, which was illegal, therefore, at south public passage be written. The appellate court upheld the findings. This order has been made by the trial Court while accepting the application for review of judgment and decree. Order XLVII, Rule 1(1), C.P.C. Describes the scope of review, which states as under:-- "Application for review of judgment.---(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved:--
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desire to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order."
4. ' In case in hand the petitioner filed a suit against the respondent seeking specific performance of sale agreement dated 22-12-1992 describing the boundaries of the property in question as East Public Lane, West Rod Khana, North houses of Haji Muhammad Ramzan and Allah Bakhsh, South boundary of well. As the suit was not contested by the respondent/defendant with averments that he is ready to effect mutation of property as per sale-deed in favour of petitioner/plaintiff further contended that on southern side the petitioner/plaintiff is interfering in public lane. The trial court decreed the suit through order dated 28-9-2004 thereby ordered that mutation entry for property within boundary specified as East Public Lane, West Rod Khana, North Houses of Muhammad Ramzan and Allah Bakhsh and South boundary of well be effected in favour of petitioner/plaintiff. It is further apparent from order that at said occasion both the parties were present in person. The review application was filed on 28-10-2004, wherein it was his contention that in sale agreement while describing the boundaries it was written that at South well and public lane, which has been cut down by the petitioner/ plaintiff, as at South in fact is a public lane which is the sole passage for public that cannot be included in the sale agreement. The trial court on remand of the case before deciding the application visited the disputed property, as 'apparent from order dated 22-12-2005. It is observed by the trial court therein that disputed property consist of a house and a lane, while from eastern side the lane is 20 feet wide and from western side its width is 30-1/2 feet, further observed that lane at eastern side is used by general public, while there are no signs of its use from western side. It is further held by the trial court that as the petition writer has committed illegality by making cutting in contents of agreement without countersigning it, therefore, the application for review is accepted.
5. ' The perusal of said sale agreement dated 22-12-1992 reveals that while writing down the boundaries of property in question it is, written that at East Public Lane, West Rod Khana, North houses of Muhammad Ramzan and Allah Bakhsh and South Water well and lands of Abdul Aziz respondent. It is apparent from this agreement that there is no cutting while writing down south , rather on the word words Rod Khana and public lane were written, on which the pen was drawn across. The copy of sale-deed filed by the petitioner also describe same boundaries wherein at South well is written. There is no cutting or overwriting on the same. The scope of review is narrow.
6. Nothing new can be agitated while applying for A review of the order/decree. No major alteration can be made in the order. In present case the respondent at the time of passing of order, dated 22-12-2005, whereby the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner, that too with consent of the parties was present in person also. The respondent thereafter, cannot take advantage of alleged overwriting or cutting present in contents the sale-deed and based his claim for effecting change in boundary given in the agreement, on basis of which the boundaries were mentioned in the decree.. Even as per observations made by the trial court the land existed on eastern side which is not a disputed fact, nothing is observed about the lane alleged to be in existence at Southern side of the property in question. It is settled principle of law that no public immunity can be transferred in favour of any private party for his personal use. In present case the petitioner has not claimed any right on any public lane rather he based his claim on the sale-deed which is specifically to the extent of a house situated within the boundaries mentioned therein. Therefore, in view of the mentioned facts there was no occasion for the trial court to treat the application for review as a suit and thereby collect evidence in respect of the same and change the contents of decree. The trial Court has made serious error while conducting the case in such a manner. The appellate court also failed to observe the legal position and also the relevant provision of law.
7. ' In view of above discussion the petition is hereby accepted. The order dated 22-12-2005 of Qazi Kalat and order dated 30-3-2006 of Majlis-e-Shoora Kalat are hereby set aside. The application for review stands rejected. The order and decree of trial Court dated 28-9-2004 is hereby upheld.
8. ' No orders as to costs.