1. ' IMAM BUX BALOCH, J.--- 1 & 2. Heard Mr. Muhammad Ali Hakro, learned counsel for the petitioneRs, He has pointed out that in the order dated 22-11-2010. It has been written that contemnors Nos.1 to 6 have filed their reply which are taken on record, the same has been mentioned with an error bonafidely as error crept in the order. The actual respondents/contemnors Nos.4 to 6 have filed their replies. We have observed that the contention of learned counsel is correct. The order dated: 22-11-2010 be read as under:--- "The respondents Nos.4 to 6 have filed their replies, which are taken on record."
3. Through this miscellaneous application, the respondent No,8 seeks the review of judgment dated 31-5-2010 passed by this Court, whereby the prayer clause "a" of the petition was allowed . The relevant portion of order is reproduced for ready reference as under:-- "In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the grievance of the petitioners in prayer clause "a" appears to be genuine. In the circumstances, the respondents Nos.3 to 5 are directed to pay salaries to the. Petitioners as per regularized scales, in which they are working, from the dates from which the services of the petitioners were regularized and not as per fixed pay or contingent/daily wages basis and continue to pay the same in future. The respondent No,6 is directed to pass the salary bills of the petitioners to be sent to him by the respondents Nos.3 to 5, within two weeks."
2. ' So far prayer clauses "b" and "c" of the petition, it may observed that no restriction can be made merely on the basis of apprehension at this premature stage. However, in case the services of the petitioners are terminated by the respondents at anytime, the petitioners shall be at liberty to challenge such termination.
3. ' We have heard Mr. Attahar Abbas Solangi learned counsel for the respondent No,8/applicant and Messrs Muhammad Hashim Soornro, Muhammad Ali Hakro and Ghulam Shabir Baloach advocates for the petitioneRs, ' Learned counsel for the respondent No,8 contended that the respondent No,8 has not filed its parawise comments and no chance was given to the respondent while passing the impugned judgment and without hearing the respondent No,8, the impugned judgment was passed and a gross miscarriage of justice has been caused. He has relied upon the case-laws of Union Council, Bolhari through Nazim at Balhari v. Province of Sindh through Secretary, Department of Labour.
4. Karachi and 3 others 2004 YLR 268, Messrs Pakistan Oil Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Messrs Peter Shipping Co.
5. Ltd. And others 2005 M LD 1745, Land Acquisition Officer and Assistant Commissioner, Hyderabad versus Gul Muhammad through Legal heirs PLD 2005 Supreme Court 311 and Mohy-ud-Din and another v. Muhammad Ashraf and 2 others 1986 M LD 1034 and contended that a gross miscarriage of justice has been done with the respondents.
6. ' On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Ali Hakro, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that after considering all aspects of the matter, this Court passed the impugned judgment and no error or typographical mistake as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent No,8 for review of impugned judgment is apparent on the face of the impugned judgment.
7. We have considered the submissions advanced at the bar and have gone through the impugned judgment passed by us, we see no error or typographical mistake in the impugned judgment. The respondent No,6 has filed parawise comments which have been considered by us while passing the impugned judgment. The respondent No,8 and other respondents did not file their parawise comments meaning thereby that they have admitted the claims of the petitioneRs, The exercise of review is a limited scope. There is no error apparent on the face of the impugned judgment. The party could not be allowed to agitate the same facts which have already been decided. In the case of Ali Ahmed v. Muhammad Iqbal 2009 SCM R 394, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-- "It was further observed that "A review by its very nature was not an appeal or rehearing merely on the ground that one party or another conceived himself to be dissatisfied with the decision of the court."
8. This is settled law that the case cannot be reopened on merits in review jurisdiction. The scope of review is very limited and review C petition is not maintainable on those points, which have been decided on one way or other.
9. ' In the case of Majid Mahmood v. Muhammad Shafi 2008 SCM R 554, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- "The exercise of review jurisdiction does not mean a rehearing 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 view the limits of the review jurisdiction, it is futile to reconsider the submissions, with 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- evidence 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 disposing 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 reconsideration is possible. Review also cannot be allowed on the ground of discovery of some new material, if such material was available 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 appeals, 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 rehearing of the appeals."
10. ' The review jurisdiction could not have been confirmed with consent of parties as it has already been confirmed by statute. The assumption that review in appeal was continuation of an appeal was not correct and corollary drawn therefrom in favour of existence of right of review on that score was also to fail. This view has been taken in the case of Capital Development Authority through Chairman v. Raja Muhammad ZaMan Khan PLD 2007 SC 121.
11. After considering and going through the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that the review application is misconceived and the respondent No,8 wants to re-hearing of the case which is not permissible under scope of review We see no merits in this application, which was dismissed by our short order dated 14-12-2010. These are the reasons for the same.