' This application filed under Order XLVII, rule 1, C. P. C. Seeks review of my order dated 28-4-1979 whereby Regular Second Appeal No, 700/1964 was disposed of as having abated.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that Regular Second Appeal No, 700/1964 titled Sher Khan and others .v. Sardar Khan was instituted by the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 and Nos. 6 to 9 themselves. The respondent Sardar Khan died in 1960, but no application for bringing the Legal Representatives of the deceased respondent was made till 20-3-1979. On 20-3-1979 an application (C. M. No, 2478-C/1979) was made by the petitioner-appellants to bring on record. The Legal Representatives of the deceased respondent after setting aside the abatement of appeal.
Alongwith this application another application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (C. M. No, 2479- C/1979) was filed for condoning the delay in making the aforementioned application. These applications were filed on behalf of the petitioners-appellants by Mian Qurban Sadiq Ikram, Advocate. The appeal was set down for hearing on 28-4-1979 when it was pointed out that the respondent had since died and the appeal stood abated. This position was admitted by the learned counsel for the appellants and consequently the appeal was disposed of as having abated.
3. It was on 8-8-1979 that the present Review Application was instituted on behalf of the petitioners through another learned counsel.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that without going into the merits of the application (C. M. No, 2478-C/1979) filed by the petitioners in Regular Second Appeal No, 700/1964 for impleading the legal Representatives of the deceased respondent after setting aside the abatement order dated 28-4-1979 whereby the second appeal was disposed of as having abated, is liable to be recalled on the ground that the aforementioned civil miscellaneous application was not taken into consideration and the request of the petitioners as made in the said application for seeking the setting aside of the abatement was not at all adverted to. He submitted that this is an error apparent on the face of the record which attracts the review of the order.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of the record which calls for review of the order dated 28-4-1979 and that in fact the omission of the petitioners to press their application at the time the Second Appeal was disposed of as having abated clearly shows that they were mindful of the weakness of their application and did not want to press the same. He further submitted that the application having been made before the passing of the order sought to be reviewed and not pressed at the time of the hearing of the appeal shall be deemed to have been abandoned. He relied in this regard on Qaimey alias Bhola v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur and 3 others (1).
6. The learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the application (C. M. No, 2478/C- 79) itself had no merit having been made almost 11 years after the death of the respondent and no useful purpose would be served by recalling the order dated 28-4-1979 whereby the appeal was disposed of as having abated.
7. Having given consideration to the controversy involved I am of the view that no case for review and recall of my order dated 28-4-1979 is made out. The words "mistake or error apparent on the face of the record" as used in Order XLVII, rule 1, C. P. C. Have to be given a strict construction. These words cannot be given so wide a scope so as to bring within its fold such errors as well which were such as should have been pointed out at the time of hearing. If that be allowed there will be no finality attached to the judgments and orders. It is obvious from the record that the application which it has been asserted on behalf of the petitioners was not considered in its true perspective was filed on 20-3-1979, whilst the appeal came up for hearing on 28-4-1979. The fact of this application having been filed as now submitted for also having the abatement set aside was therefore in the knowledge of the petitioners at the time of hearing of the appeal. Nothing having been urged in this regard and the appeal having been allowed to be dismissed as having abated, it hardly lies in the mouth of the petitioners to canvass that an error apparent on the face of the record as envisaged by Order XLVII, rule 1, C. P. C. Has occurred.
8. The principle enunciated in PLD 1979 Lah. 535 referred to above (1) PLD 1979 Lah. 535 that arguments not addressed at the hearing cannot after judgment be made a ground of review as whatever arguments or pleas are available to a party must be addressed at the time of hearing can with all force be applied to the present case and the application of the petitioners for setting aside of the abatement on that premises can be held to have been abandoned.
9. Apart altogether from the above position yet another factor which impels me not to recall the order dated 28-4-1979 is that the petitioners do not have a case for setting aside the abatement as well. It is the admitted position that the application for setting aside the abatement filed in the appeal (R. S. A. No, 700 of 1964) was made after 11 years of the death of the respondent. The only reason advanced in the application filed alongwith the aforementioned application seeking condonation of delay is that the appellants informed their counsel of the date of death of the respondent and also provided him with a list of his Legal Representatives for making an application to bring them on record but it was on 19-3-1979 that they learnt that the application had not been filed by the counsel. It has not been alleged anywhere that the factum of death of the respondent had not come to their knowledge. On the contrary, there is an admission that knowledge of the date of death of the respondent was with the petitioners-appellants all along. That being so, it is established that the petitioners-appellants acted negligently in not even ascertaining for 11 years whether an application for bringing on record the legal Representatives of the deceased respondent had been made or not. It is also on record that the parties are closely related, they were combaters in the land and are residents of the same village. In the attendant circumstances of this case as narrated above the setting aside of abatement is in no manner called for as doing the same would mean allowing premium to the petitioners-appellants on their own neglect.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find no merit in this Review Application which is accordingly dismissed with cost.