' Petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for possession of land measuring 277 Kanals, 8 Marlas through pre- emption against the respondent, the subject-matter of Mutation No,62 dated 28-7-1972. The written statement was filed by the respondent claiming that he was in possession of the suit land as tenant at will, therefore, the suit for pre-emption was not maintainable against him. The learned trial Court partially decreed the suit while, concluding that the respondent who was in possession of Khasra Nos. 230, 231, 233, Khata No,16 is tenant, therefore, dismissed the suit qua these Khasra NumbeRs, ' The appeal was filed which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Attock, while setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court resulting in dismissal of the suit. Regular Second Appeal No,221 of 1975 was moved before this Court which was decided vide order dated 17-5-1999 by the learned Single Judge in Chamber, dismissing the appeal.
Subsequently the petitioner moved the instant review application on the grounds that while deciding the appeal the statements of D.W.1 and D.W.2 have been misread by the learned Single Judge in Chamber. The learned Single Judge in Chamber while admitting the instant review petition vide order dated 6-7-1999 observed as follow :--- "Learned counsel for the petitioner states that while passing the impugned judgment statements of D.W.1 and D.W.2 have been totally misread. Notice. In the meantime the operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 17-5-1999 is suspended."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned trial Court in the light of available record came to the conclusion that the respondent-defendant was tenant at will in Khasra Nos.
222, 261, 262 and 263 that the learned first appellate Court misread the statements of D.W.1 and D.W.2 and came to the conclusion in the light of those statements that Khasra Girdawari was factually wrong and thus while allowing the appeal dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner- plaintiff. Learned counsel further argued, that the learned Single Judge in Chamber while disposing of the R.S.A. Also did not advert to this aspect and thus review petition was filed which was admitted for regular hearing. Learned counsel referred the statement of D.W.1. Maulvi Hayat Muhammad son of Sarfraz Khan and D.W.3 Karam Khan, the defendant-respondent and argued that it was admitted by D.W.1 that he was tenant at will in the land situated near Dhok for 15/16 years while D.W.3 admitted that he was in cultivation possession of the land measuring about 150 Kanals thus the findings of the learned trial Court are proved through these statements, so the evidence was misread by this Court as well as by the learned first appellate court and it is an error patent on the face of record and through this review petition is liable to be corrected. Prayed that the review application be allowed and the earlier judgment dated 17-5-1999 be reviewed and the appeal filed by the petitioner be also allowed.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed this review application on the ground that the learned Single Judge in Chamber as well as the learned appellate Court rightly interpreted the statements of the witnesses. Even otherwise the scope of review is limited and reappraisal of evidence is not allowed under Order 114 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code 1908. Prayed that this review petition be dismissed.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The learned Single Judge in Chamber while deciding Regular Second Appeal under review on 17- 5-1999 in paragraphs No's.3 and 4 observed as under:--- "3. Record has been perused. According to the statement of D.W.1, who is the nephew of Mst. Noor Bhari, the vendor has stated that at the time of sale, the possession of the suit property was with the respondent as a tenant, and that Hiyyat Muhammad, who has been recorded to be in cultivating possession had never been a tenant of the vendor. D.W.2, Muhammad Amin has also testified to the same effect, and the perusal of the record shows that no effective cross- examination on these two witnesses have been made to controvert their statements in chief.
According to the appellate Court the entries in the Khasra Girdawari showing Hiyyat Muhammad to be in possession are against the other evidence on the record, which fully establishes the possession of the respondent as tenant thus, these Khasra Girdawaries have been disregarded.
(4) I do not find that there is any error of misreading or non-reading of evidence committed by the court in appeal with regard to the determination of factum of possession of the respondent at the time of sale. On the contrary, the trial Court had simply relied upon the Khasra Girdawari, to which in law, no presumption of correctness is attached, and in view of the statements of D. Ws. The possession of the respondent as tenant was duly established and was sufficient to rebut the contents of such Khasra Girdawari.
In the light of what has been stated above, I do not find any factual or legal infirmity in the judgment of the court in appeal impugned before me, which is hereby upheld. Resultantly, this appeal has no force, and is dismissed."
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the statements of D.W.1. D.W.2 and D.W.3. D.W.
Maulvi Hayat Muhammad stated:- 1 5/1 6 ' D W.2 Muhammad Amin son of Sher Muhammad stated:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' D.W.3 Karam Khan the defendant stated:-- {{URDU TEXT}} ' If the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and these statements are seen, it shows that the learned counsel while filing this review petition has sough re-appraisal and deeper appreciation of evidence which has already been done by this Court. It has consistently been held that the scope of review is limited and review application is not to be entertained where an attempt is made through such application to re-argue the main case or where re- consideration and reappraisal of the same material is sought. Error pointed out through such application must have material bearing upon the fate of the case indicating that, but for such error result of the case would have been different.
"To elaborate this point further it is beneficial here to reproduce a part of paragraph No,3 in a judgment passed by the learned ' Full Bench of this Court cited as Pakistan Lawyers Forum and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2004 Lahore 145 as under:--- "The parameters of review jurisdiction have very clearly and explicitly been delineated by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Mst. Bilqis Bibi v. Mst. Zainab Bibi and others 1989 SCMR 1008 and Ahmad and 5 others v. The State 2002 SCMR 1611. It is trite that a review application is not to be entertained where an attempt is made through the same to reargue the main case or where reconsideration or reappraisal of the same material is sought. A reference in this regard may be made to the cases of Mirza Bashir Ahmad v. Abdul Karim 1976 SCMR 417.
Principal, Nishtar Medical College, Multan v. Muhammad Iqbal Khan Niazi and 2 others 1979 SCMR 604, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto v. The State PLD 1979 SC 741, Jalal and 3 others v. Nazir Alunad and 8 others 1980 SCMR 320, Mst. Zainab Khatoon and another v. Mst. Ghulam Fatima 1980 SCMR 331, Abdul Majeed and another v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others 1980 SCMR 504, Colony Sarhad Textile Mills Ltd. v. Superintendent Central Excise and Land Customs. Nowshera 1981 SCMR. 867, Abdul Hamid Saqfi v. Service Tribunal of Pakistan and 22 others 1988 SCMR 1318 and Manzoor Hussain v. Mst. Zohra Bibi PLD 1990 SC 924. It is also a settled principle that for the success of a review application the error pointed out through such an application must have a material bearing upon the fate of the case and but for the said error the result of the case would have been different. Reliance in this regard may be placed upon the cases of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto v. The State PLD 1979 SC 743. Lt. Col Farzand Ali v. Province of West Pakistan 1980 SCMR 909, Mst. Hashmat Bibi and others v. Gulzar Muhammad and others 1981 SCMR 316, Colony Sarhad Textile Mills Ltd. v.
Superintendent Central Excise and Land Customs Nowshera 1981 SCMR 867 and Hussain v. Allah Bakhsh 1980 SCMR.
155. The law on review jurisdiction is equally settled on the point that points not raised during the hearing of the main petition cannot be made grounds for review. A reference in this respect may be made to the cases of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto v. The State PLD 1979 SC 741, Abdul Majeed and another v. Chief Settlement. Commissioner and others 1980 SCMR 504, Brig. H.H. Nawab Muhammad Abbas Khan Abbasi. Ameer of Bahawalpur v. The Government of Pakistan and others PLD 1984 SC 67, Hussain v. Allah Bakhsh 1986 SCMR 1155, Muhammad Hanif v. Samar Gul and others 1956 SCMR 1179 and Haji Muhammad Saifullah Khan v. The Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1990 SC 79. Merely because another view of the same matter may be possible has never been considered to be a valid ground for review and this was so decided in the cases of Begum Razia Muttaqi and others v.
State Life Insurance Corporation (Pakistan) and others 1981 SCMR 762. The Government of Punjab through Secretary, Education Department, and another v. Board of Foreign Mission of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America through Lahore Church Council PLD 1988 SC 382 and Haji Muhammad Saifullah Khan v. The Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1990 SC 79. It is also equally settled that mere erroneousness of a judgment is not by itself a valid ground for its review. The case of Begum Razia Muttaqi and others vs. State Life Insurance Corporation (Pakistan) and others 1981 SCMR 762 is a case in point in this regard."
8. Further reference can also be seen in the judgments cited as-- ' S. Sharif Ahmed Hashmi v. Chairman, Screening Committee Lahore and another 1981 SCMR 711, Abdul .Rauf and others v. Qutab Khan and others 2006 SCMR 1574 and Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman WAPDA Lahore. And 6 others V. Khalid Pervaiz PLD 2006 Lahore 611."
9. As in the present case through this review application the petitioner is seeking, reappraisal of the evidence and the learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to point out any error patent on the face of record, therefore, this review application merits dismissal which is hereby dismissed.