1. ' FAROOQ ALI CHANNA , .--- Granted.
2. By this application, Advocate for the petitioner has requested for recalling the order dated 16-12- 2011 whereby the petition was dismissed, on the ground that the order was passed without an opportunity of hearing to the Advocate for the petitioner and going through the documents attached with the petition.
2. ' The background of the petition was that the petitioner assailed the concurrent findings of the two Courts below passed in Rent Application No,122 of 2003 by the learned VIth Rent Controller, Karachi (Central) directing the ejectment of petitioner from the rented premises and upheld in F.R.A. No,10 of 2005 by learned Hnd Additional District Judge, Karachi (Central). Both the orders were impugned in this petition.
3. ' After notice to the Respondents, matter was fixed for hearing on 16-12-2011 and was dismissed in limine with no order as to cost. The petitioner thereafter filed instant application for recalling the order dated 16-12-2011.
4. ' I have heard Mr. Shamshad Ali Qureshi, Advocate for the petitioner. He during the argument has contended that although the application is for recalling the order dated 16-12-2011 but in fact it is a Review Petition. Learned counsel has contended that order dated 16-12-2011 was passed without an opportunity of hearing to the Advocate for the petitioner. His further contention was that while passing the order, the Court even did not consider the documents annexed with the petition.
5. Learned counsel has further contended that this Court while passing the order also failed to give due care and consideration of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, "audi alteram partem". As such apparently the order is suffering from major illegalities and liable to be reviewed.
6. ' Besides the arguments on the fact of the case, learned Advocate has also made submissions regarding the review powers of this Court vested in section 114 along with section 117, C.P.C. He has relied upon the following case-laws:---
(1) 2011 SCM R 998 (Raees-ud-Din v. Nasreen Anwar and others)
(2) 2011 SCM R 1494 (Mst. Aziz Latif and others v. Lahore Development Authority)
(3) PLD 1991 Supreme Court 905 (Syed Arif Shah v. Abdul Hakeem Qureshi)
(4) PLD 2004 Supreme Court 752 (Rahim Jan v. Mrs. Z. Ikram Gardezi and others)
(5) PLD 1975 Lahore 942 (Mst. Fehmida Khatoon v. Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation), Lahore and another)
7. ' The crux of the submissions and citations relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the Court which passed the order has inherent power to review its own Judgments or orders to meet I have also heard Mr. M.S. Qureshi, Advocate for the respondent No,
1. He has contended that exercise of powers of the Court to review the order is not a routine procedure and the Court cannot review its earlier order unless satisfied that the material error manifest on the face of the order under review and in this case no error appears on the face of order hence the provision of review is not attracted. Learned counsel has further contended that in this application the petitioner seeks order dated 16-12-2011 recalled with an opportunity to rehear the entire case which is not admissible under the law.
8. I have considered the arguments and perused the record. The entire focus of the Advocate for the petitioner was on the provisions of Review under section 114, C.P.C. There is no cavil on the inherent powers of the Court to rectify/review its own judgments or orders if there appears any error on the face of Judgment or order, if requested to be reviewed. However, there is much differences between the review of A order and recalling the order whereby the matter was disposed of finally.
9. By review of the order, the matter finally disposed of, cannot be re argued in the garb of review and the Court cannot hear the matter as an appeal against its own judgment or order even if the question of law and facts is involved. Whereas by recalling the order of disposal of case finally like the ex parte order or disposal of matter in non-prosecution the parties are allowed to reargue the matter and place their case afresh.
10. ' So far the request of Advocate for the petitioner for recalling the order dated 16-12-2011 on the ground that the same was passed without an opportunity of hearing is concerned, the same appears to be incorrect as it is manifest from the order dated 16-12-2011 that appropriate opportunity of hearing was given to the Advocate of the petitioner. The relevant part of the order is reproduced as under:--- "2. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the II-A.D.J. Did not appreciate the fact that the Rent Controller came to the conclusion after evidence that respondent No,1 could not establish the relationship of landlord and tenant and, therefore, II-A.D.J. Without any material being available with him could have not reversed the findings of the Rent Controller. It was also argued that there was an oral agreement between the petitioner and respondent No,1 with regard to the sale of the flat and that the consideration of the flat amounting to Rs,355,000/- was paid by the petitioner to respondent No,1 in instalments from December, 1996 upto June, 1999 and that therefore, the petitioner is the owner in possession of the flat.
11. ' I have perused the record and find that after filing of the Rent case, the petitioner for the first time asserted ownership of the flat by filing Suit No,1051 of 2003 for specific performance and permanent injunction, (Civil Suit) which it seems, was dismissed by the 1st Senior Civil Judge, Karachi Central vide Judgment dated 29-10-2010 decree of which was prepared on or about 4-11-2010. Appeal No,177 of 2010 after dismissal of the Civil Suit is pending adjudication before District Judge, Karachi Central.
12. ' The order further reveals that not only the above submissions of Advocate for the petitioner were considered with due care but also replied properly in the light of facts brought on record during the proceedings before the Rent Controller so also the Appellate Court. However, since no merit was found in the submissions of the Advocate-for the petitioner in support of his plea taken in this Constitutional Petition, therefore, my learned brother Judge in Chamber at that time came to the conclusion that in the circumstances, impugned judgments of both the Courts below were not attracting the interference of this Court, therefore, the Constitutional Petition was dismissed in limine.
13. ' For the reason above, there appears no merit in the application, the same is dismissed.
14. Petition/.