Javed Iqbal, J.--Review of judgment dated 23.4.2009 has been preferred on behalf of Mobashir Ahmad (petitioner).
2. Heard Mr. Aftab Farrukh, learned Sr. ASC at length. It is worth mentioning that while arguing the appeal on 14.4.2009, the learned Senior counsel had confined himself to the last seen evidence, recovery of deceased's car, extra judicial confession, discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses specially Shabbir Ahmad (PW-8) and Sher Muhammad (PW-9), deposition of Investigating Officer and non-issuance of proclamation for the arrest of Mobashir Ahmad (petitioner) under Sections 87 and 88 of Cr.P.C. All the above mentioned contentions have been dealt with in a comprehensive manner in the judgment impugned (Paragraphs No, 11 and 13) which being well based cannot be reversed without any lawful justification, which is lacking in this case.
There is no cavil to the proposition that reversal of conclusion earlier reached by this Court, after full consideration of the question is not possible in the exercise of the review jurisdiction as a review cannot be granted for merely re-examination of the same arguments. It is to be noted that re- arguing a case on merits as well as additional grounds is beyond the scope of review petition.
Besides that a mere desire of re-hearing of the matter cannot constitute sufficient ground for the grant of review. (Muhammad Hussain v. Zohra Bibi PLD 1990 SC 924, Manzoor Hussain v. Zohra Bibi PLJ 1990 SC 345, Muhammad Sarwar v. Asad Hakim 1983 SCM R 177, Jalal v. Nazir Ahmad 1980 SCM R 320, Abdul Hamid Saqfi v. Service Tribunal of Pak 1988 SCM R 1318, Ali Khan v. Shahzaman 1980 SCM R 332, Abdul' Majeed v. Chief Settlement Commissioner 1980 SCM R 504, Maqbool Ahmad Tabassam v. State 1980 SCM R 907, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. State 1979 SC 741, Nawab Bibi v. Hamida Begum 1968 SCM R 104, Muhammad Hayat v. Govt. of West Pak 1968 SCM R 107, Muhammad Najeebullah v.
Government of Pakistan 1968 SCM R 768, Muhammad Ghaffar v. State 1969 SCM R 12, Ghulam Fatima v. Settlement Commr 1969 SCM R 5, Ghulam Fatima v. Settl. Commr 1969 SCM R 247, Feroz Din v.
Allah Ditta 1969 SCM R 10, Dewan Jairamadass and others v. Syed Niamat Ali and others 1983 SCM R 330). It is well settled by now that "where petitioner took up all material grounds taken by him during the course of hearing of appeal and dealt with and decided in judgment under review and thus sought rehearing of arguments addressed by him at time of hearing and disposal of appeal and wished a different decision from one already given without satisfying jurisdictional requirement necessary for maintaining review petition. The petition was dismissed". (Akbar Ali Bukhari v. State Bank of Pakistan 1981 SCM R 518). The re-hearing of the case in garb of review petition cannot be allowed as held in case titled Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. The State (PLD 1979 SC 741) and moreso review cannot be granted on the ground that certain facts require re-appraisement by Supreme Court. (Basharat Khan v. The State 1984 SCMR 1033 (1), Muhammad Nazir v. State 1979 SCM R 89, Kalal Khan v. Misri Khan 1979 SCM R 347, Saghir Ali v, Mehar Din 1968 SCM R 729.
3. The principles upon which a review can be granted are well settled, i,e, there must be some new point based upon discovery of new evidence which could not with diligence, have been found out on the previous occasion. A review petition is not competent where neither any new and important matter or evidence has been discovered nor is any mistake or error apparent on the face of the 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 Constitution, may, amount to error apparent on face of the record. Error, on the other hand, must not only be apparent but must also have a material bearing on fate of case and be hot of inconsequential import. If judgment or finding, although suffering from an erroneous assumption of facts, is sustainable on other grounds available on record, review is not justifiable notwithstanding error being apparent on the face of the record.
Where order under review did not appear to have been vitiated by any error on face of the record nor any other good and sufficient reason was given for review of order. Petition for review was dismissed." (Nawab Bibi v. Hamida Begum 1968 SCM R 104, Master Tahilram v. Lilaram 1970 SCM R 622, Abdul Khaliq Qureshi v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner Pakistan 1968 SCM R 800, Rehmatullah v. Abdul Majid 1968 SCM R 838 Hassan Din v. Claims Commissioner 1968 SCM R 1047 (2), Qamar Din v. Maula Bakhsh 1968 SCM R 1042 (1), Muhammad Akram v. State 1970 SCM R 418, Muhammad Akram v. State 1970 P.Cr.L.J. 909, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. The State 1979 SCM R 427, Rizwan Co-Operative Society Ltd. Custodian of Evacuee Property 1978 SCM R 449, Farzand Ali v.
Muhammad Arif 1979 SCM R 281, Rashiduddin Qureshi v. State 1979 SCM R 99).
4. The review petition has been examined in the light of contentions as mentioned hereinabove which appears to be devoid of merits. The petition is dismissed accordingly.