' SYED HASSAN AZHAR RIZVI, J.---(C.M.A. No,16234 of 2012). This is an application, filed by the applicant/respondent No, 5, under section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule(1), C.P.C. And section 151, C.P.C. Read with Rule 49, Chapter VII of Sindh Chief Court Rules (0.S), seeking recall of order passed by this Court on 26-7-2012 and allow, him to file reply as well as objections to stay application for further proceedings. The application is duly supported by affidavit of respondent No,
5. In the memo of application it is stated that this Court without consent of the respondent No, 5 has passed order dated 26-7-2012. It is also stated that respondent No, 5 had not mandated his counsel to give consent to any proposal regarding the re-counting at polling station, Karachi-East for the election of post of Senior Vice Chairman, Pakistan Engineering Council (PEC) for the simple reason that applicant has challenged the said recounting of votes at polling station, Karachi East in Constitutional Petition No, 2400 of 2012 before Islamabad High Court wherein stay for recounting of votes was granted on 20-7-2012. It is averred in the application that order dated 20-7-2012 was not brought to the notice of this Court before passing of the order dated 26-7-2012, being contrary to law and administration of justice is an error apparent on the fact of record which is floating on the surface and therefore order is liable to be recalled/reviewed. It is also averred that High Court of any Province cannot issue stay order against any stay order of another High Court and therefore the impugned order dated 26-7-2012 of this Court is without jurisdiction and liable to be recalled.
2. Counter-affidavit to such application was filed on behalf of the petitioner wherein the petitioner denied all the allegation and contents of the review application in to. It is stated that the respondent. No, 5 has approached this Court with unclean hands as the respondent No 5 has filed this application with mala fide intention and misrepresentation of facts for which respondent No, 5 would be liable for criminal action. It is also stated that the order dated 26-7-2012 was passed after proper opportunity of hearing in presence and with the consent of respondent No,
5. It is further stated that respondent No, 5 has made false, frivolous allegations on his previous counsel as the order was passed in his presence. It is averred that the Islamabad High Court has not passed stay order in C.P. No, 2400 of 2012, although directed on 27-7-2012 to respondent No, 5 to file statement against his concealment of the present petition and orders. It is, however, submitted that Single Judge Order dated 20-7-2012 was to the extent of suspension of letter dated 14-7-2012 for recounting on 21-7-2012, which is not binding upon Division Bench of this Court. Thus, order dated 26-7-2012 passed in open Court with consent is legal, fair and proper.
3. No affidavit-in-rejoinder to the said counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent No, 5 to rebut the same.
4. We have heard Mr. Masood A. Noorani, learned counsel for the applicant/respondent No, 5, Mr. Ghulam Hyder Shaikh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Syed Mureed Ali Shah, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 and perused the material available on record.
5. Mr. Masood A. Noorani, Advocate for the applicant/respondent No, 5 has contended that a High Court cannot issue writ or order against order of another High Court. He has contended that order of recounting of votes was passed by this Court on 26-7-2012 when Islamabad High Court had already stayed the operation of letter dated 14-7-2012 of recounting on 20-7-2012. He stated that the question arises that whether this Court had jurisdiction to pass order of recounting when it was already stayed by the Islamabad High Court. He submitted that this amounts to issuing order by one High Court against order of another High Court, which exercise cannot be undertaken under Sub-Article (5) of Article 199 of the Constitution. He submitted that a High Court is not a "person" within the meaning of Article 199(1) of the Constitution and as such Article 199(5) of the Constitution has excluded the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts from the definition of person. Therefore, issuing of order dated 26-7-2012 of recounting of votes by this Court amounts to issue a writ against the order of Islamabad High Court dated 20-7-2012 suspending the letter dated 14-7-2012 of PEC of recounting of votes.' Thus, the order under review was without jurisdiction, as under Article 199(5) one High Court cannot issue writ under Article 199 against order of another High Court nor High Court can sit as a Court of appeal over an order or judgment of another High Court or Bench.
In support of his above submission, he placed reliance upon the cases of Gohar Aman Khan v.
Malik Aman and 3 others (1989 CLC 2032), Mohammad Ashraf and others v. Union Bank of Middle East Ltd. And another (1991 M LD 2037) and Suleman Ali Haider and Government of Balochistan and others (2004 SCM R 354).
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No, 5 secondly contended that parties by consent cannot confer jurisdiction on a Court which is not vested in it. He submitted that the petitioner has raised objection that since the order dated 26-7-2012 of recounting of votes was passed by consent of parties therefore the review application is not competent. In this regard he argued that the objection of petitioner is misconceived as the respondent No, 5 had not mandated his counsel to give consent to proposal of recounting of votes at polling station Karachi East in election for post of Senior Vice Chairman of Government Body of PEC. He submitted that order under review itself shows that "no objection" to recounting was given only by the counsel for the respondent No, 5 and not by respondent No, 5 himself. He further submitted that even logically the respondent No, 5 could not have given consent for recounting of votes for the simple reason that he along with three others elected office bearers had already filed C.P. No, 2400 of 2012 on 20-7-2012 in which the Islamabad High Court had suspended the letter dated 14-7-2012 of Secretary PEC regarding recounting of votes of Election Committee. He submitted that in such a situation it obviously seems improbable that respondent No, 5 himself would ask for recounting of votes, when he and other successful candidates had approached Islamabad High Court against letter dated 14-7-2012 of PEC for recounting of votes. He, however, submitted that jurisdiction not vested with a Court cannot be conferred by consent of parties. He has relied upon the cases of EDO School and Literacy and others v. Qamar Dost Khan and others (2006 SCM R 1630) and Cosmetic Service Ltd v. Holger Hahn and others (2009 PLC (C.S.) Karachi 446).
7. He next contended that C.P. No, 2400 of 2012 was filed by four successful candidates including the respondent No, 5 who were declared successful by the Election Committee PEC. He contended that on 10-7-2012 when the respondent No, 5 had gone to Islamabad to take oath of his office at PEC Head Office he was informed that this Court has restrained the respondent No, 5 from taking oath but not other successful candidates who filed C.P. No, 2400 of 2012 and who were not made respondent in the present petition and as such the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of parties. He argued that the respondent No,5 till then had neither received the copy of the petition and its annexures which were not supplied to him even on 26-7-2012 therefore he did not know as to what the present petition was all about. He submitted that in the meanwhile the Registrar PEC issued a letter dated 14-7-2012 for recounting of votes and against the said letter the respondent No, 5 and three other successful candidates approached the Islamabad High Court by filing C.P.
No, 2400 of 2012 on 20-7-2012 in which the operation of letter dated 14-7-2012 for recounting of votes was suspended. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to Para-7 of the instant petition wherein the petitioner has stated that he is aggrieved by the illegal, without lawful authority and jurisdiction, decision of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 by including results transmitted by Presiding Officer without recounting/verification of votes at polling station Karachi East for the post of Senior Vice Chairman. He vehemently contended that the petitioner has deliberately side lined over the order dated 6-6-2012 passed by Islamabad High Court in C.Ps. Nos. 3506 to 3509 of 2011, where the official respondents as well as counsel of the petitioner, who was respondent No, 7 in C.P. No, 3506 of 2011 that "exclusion of polling station Karachi East is illegal and besides, the law applicable therefore respondents have no objection if order of exclusion of result of polling station Karachi East is set aside". He submitted that petitioner never raised the issue of recounting of votes nor requested for the same before Islamabad High Court where the petitions on the same subject were heard and decided on 6-6-2012 in presence of all the parties and the matter became past and closed transaction which could not have been reopened. He, however, submitted that if the petitioner felt aggrieved by the order dated 6-6-2012 he should have approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and not before this Court which is not an appellate Court. He, therefore, urged that the petition is hit by principle of Res judicata and also by section 10, C.P.C.
8. Learned counsel further argued that recounting was held on 30-8-2012 and now the question is that what would be effect of recounting on review application or even on main application. In this regard he submitted that since basic order dated 26-7-2012 and 17-8-2012 of recounting were passed without appreciating above facts and without going through the order dated 6-6-2012 of Islamabad High Court and also due to escaping of notice by this Court of order dated 20-7-2012 of Islamabad High Court in C.P. No, 2400 of 2012, the order of recounting of votes dated 26-7-2012 and 17-8-2012 are liable to be reviewed therefore subsequent orders and exercise of recounting must collapse. He placed reliance on the case of Yousuf Ali v. Mohammad Aslam (PLD 1958 SC 104) wherein it has been held that "if basic order is wrong then whole edifice built on it must collapse".
9. In the end, learned counsel submitted that review of an order is a sustainable right. He submitted that pleas raised in review application of respondent No, 5 were neither gone into nor considered by this Court and recounting was ordered deciding the fate of review application, which was otherwise ripe for hearing. He submitted that respondent No,5 has been condemned unheard, the errors are floating on surface of record and the review application is liable to be allowed and order of recounting as well as the changed result of election compiled by Nazir of this Court are liable to be set aside. On the point of review, he relied upon the cases of Central Development Authority v.
Raja Mohammad Zaman Khan (PLD 2007 SC 121), Nisar Ahmed and others v. Naseeruddin and others (2004 SCM R 619), Mohammad Hussain Naqvi v. Azad Government and others (PLD 2007 SC (AJ&K) 92) and Land Acquisition Officer and Assistant Commissioner, Hyderabad v. Gul Muhammad (PLD 2005 SC 311).
10. Mr. Ghulam Haider Shaikh, learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset attacked the maintainability of the review application and argued that the respondent No,5 has approached this Court at belated stage with unclean hands as the respondent No, 5 has filed the present application with mala fide intentions and misrepresentation of facts and misconceived record. He vehemently argued that order dated 26-7-2012 was passed after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the learned counsel of respondent No, 5 in his presence with his consent and now the order has been fully acted upon and Nazir of-this Court has submitted his report dated 3-9-2012.
He requested the Senior Member of this Bench (Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, J.) to recollect that on 26- 7-2012 a specific question was asked from respondent No,5; why you are avoiding from recounting? Whereby you are claiming as highest votes and said go through record and orders of Islamabad High Court and kept aside the matter. The matter again taken up after half an hour, when the respondent No, 5 along with his counsel requested the Court that recounting be done in presence of Nazir then the Court asked from other parties; the parties gave their no objection and thereafter the order sought to be reviewed was passed. He therefore submitted that when the respondent No, 5 himself was present before the Court how he took plea that he had given no mandate to his counsel, is totally incorrect. He contended that respondent No, 5 has made false, frivolous allegations on his previous counsel when he was very much present at the time of passing of consent order. He submitted that the judgments cited by the respondent No,5 being on different facts have no relevancy with this case.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the Petition No, 2400 of 2012 filed on 20- 7-2012 by respondent No,5 before Islamabad High Court is not maintainable as it has been filed by concealing of pendency of this petition and order passed by this Court on 10-7-2012. He contended that the respondent No, 5 was fully aware of the pendency of this petition as notice issued by this Court has been duly served upon him and other respondents. He also contended that respondent No, 5 himself admitted that he had gone to Islamabad for taking oath of his office but due to stay granted by this Court he could not take oath. He, therefore, submitted that the contentions of the respondent No, 5 that this Court has no jurisdiction, Petition is barred by res judicata and under section 10 of the C.P.C., has no force.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that PEC Committee received complaints regarding rigging and maneuvering of ballot papers based on which the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 had taken decision for exclusion of Karachi East polling station and according to PEC election rules.
He contended that many of the candidates had filed different petitions before Islamabad High Court, which were disposed of on 6-6-2012 with the observations that "However", all beneficiaries/ returned candidates of notice dated 24-12-2011, who are likely to be excluded by exclusion of result of polling station Karachi, East, may seek their remedy, if any, in accordance with law applicable."
He contended that after disposal of above petitions the petitioner approached this Court for recounting / verification of polled votes at polling station of Karachi East. He submitted that this Court is fully competent to pass order of recounting of votes. He submitted that recounting was done in presence of PEC Committee under the supervision of Nazir of this Court.
14. Learned counsel lastly contended that the respondent No, 5 has failed to file affidavit-in- rejoinder in respect to the counter-affidavit filed by the petitioner, as such the same went without any rebuttal. He while concluding his submissions has submitted that review application is not maintainable under the law and liable to be dismissed with cost. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the cases of Shabbir Ahmed and another v. Akhtar Alam and others (PLD 1994 SC 598), Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. The State (PLD 1979 SC 741), Sheikh Iftikharuddin and another v.
District Judge, Bahawalpur and 8 others (2002 SCM R 1523) and Muhammad Sharif and 4 others v.
Sultan Hamayun and others (2003 SCM R 1221).
15. Syed Mureed Ali Shah, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 has adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He, however, argued that the respondent No, 5 is not entitled to call into question the consent order passed in his presence in any manner whatsoever as he has not approached to this Court with clean hands. He also argued that respondent No, 5 preferred C.P.L.A. No,1421 of 2012 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan impugned the order which is sought to be reviewed through listed application. The said petition was dismissed on 17-8-2012. He submitted that respondents Nos. 2 to 4 filed application challenging the maintainability of Writ Petition No, 2400 of 2012 filed by respondent No, 5 before Islamabad High Court and the Islamabad High Court after appraising the pendency of present petition not extended the interim order passed on 20-7-2012. He further argued that the respondent No,5 has failed to file affidavit-in-rejoinder to the counter-affidavits filed by the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 and petitioner, it means that facts narrated in the counter-affidavit of the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 to 4 had to be accepted as true. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the cases of Abdul Rauf and 10 others v. Government of Sindh and others (2003 CLC 1602) and Jehan Khan v. Province of Sindh and others (PLD 200.3. Karachi 691).
16. We have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, minutely perused the available record and the case-law cited at the bar.
17. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant/respondent No, 5 is that the respondent No, 5 had not given mandate to his counsel to give consent to any proposal regarding the recounting at polling station, Karachi East for the election of post of Senior Vice Chairman Pakistan Engineering Counsel (PEC) and secondly this Court has no jurisdiction to pass order against order of another High Court.
18. With regard to the first point whether respondent No, 5 had given mandate to his counsel to give consent for recounting of votes or not, it may be noted that the respondent No, 5 engaged Mr. Muhammad Khalid Khan Arshi, Advocate of Messrs Ahsan Law Associates and signed Vakalatnama wherein he has given all powers to his counsel in connection with this case. For advantageous, we may reproduce he relevant portion of Vakalatnama signed by the respondent No, 5 in the above-noted petition:- "I/We Al Kazim Mansoor son of Syed Muzaffar Ahmed Ashraf the respondent No, 5 in the above noted C.P. Do hereby appoint Ahsan Law Associates and Mr. Muhammad Khalid Khan Arshi by this power of attorney, I hereby constitute and appoint Ahsan Law Associates as my attorney for me in my name on my behalf to appear plead and do all lawful acts and things in connection with the said case on my behalf on with execution of any decree or order passed in the case in my favour which I shall be entitled or permitted to do myself, and in particular, shall be entitled to withdraw or compromise the case or refer it to arbitration or to agree to abide by the special oath of any person and to withdraw and receive documents and any money from the Court or the opposite party and to sign proper receipts and discharges for the same appoint any other Pleader or Advocate whenever he thinks proper to do so."
' A bare reading of above quoted contents of Vakalatnama clearly shows that respondent No, 5 has given full authority to his counsel to do all lawful acts and things which he deems appropriate.
Not only this but the respondent No, 5 has given authority to his counsel even to withdraw or enter into compromise the case. Therefore, the plea taken by the respondent No, 5 only on this score is liable to rejected.
19. Apart from above, the stand taken by the respondent No, 5 that without his consent, his counsel has given consent for recounting of votes, it is also noted that on the date viz. 26-7-2012 the respondent No,5 himself admittedly present with his counsel but inadvertently the presence of respondent No, 5 could not be mentioned in the said order. On 26-7-2012 when this matter came up for hearing before the Bench in which I was one of the member (Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi) put a specific question from respondent No, 5 why you are avoiding from recounting as you are claiming highest votes? The respondent No, 5 also directed to go through the order passed by the Islamabad High Court and matter was kept aside to consult his counsel. After half an hour the matter again taken up when the respondent No, 5 along with his counsel agreed for recounting of votes and requested that recounting be done in presence of Nazir of this Court. Thereafter consent order was passed in presence of all the learned counsel for the parties. The respondent No, 5 present in Court when confronted with the above position, he stated that he was present on the date of hearing, but at the time when the order was dictated he was outside the Chamber to talk with someone on call phone. It is clearly established that respondent No, 5 was present on the date when the consent order for recounting of votes was passed and at his request and cost Nazir was appointed and if the respondent No, 5 had not given consent for recounting of votes why he paid Nazir fee. It means that order for recounting of votes was passed with his consent. Additionally, neither the respondent No, 5 has filed affidavit, narrating the same facts as stated in the listed application nor placed on record any sort of action he initiated against his previous counsel like issuance of legal notice, complaint to the Bar Council etc.
20. Adverting to the second point that whether this Court had jurisdiction to pass order of recounting when it was already stayed by another High Court. Learned counsel for the applicant/respondent No,5 while making his submission on the point has contended that Islamabad High Court vide order dated 20-7-2012 stayed he letter dated 14-1-2012 of Registrar PEC for recounting of votes in C.P. No, 2400 of 2012 and thereafter order of this Court dated 26-7-2012 for recounting of votes is amounting to issue order by one High Court to another High Court, which exercise cannot be undertaken under Article 199(5) of Constitution. As such, issuing of such order dated 26-7-2012 of recounting of votes by this Court amounts to issuing a writ against the order of Islamabad High Court dated 20-7-2012. Another submission of the learned counsel for the applicant was that parties by consent cannot confer jurisdiction on a Court which is not vested in it and further the petition is hit by principle of res judicata and also by section 10, C.P.C.
21. To deal with the above point, it is necessary to go through the background of the case. The respondent No, 3 issued schedule for holding election of the governing body for the term 20-11-2012 and nomination from the interested candidates were invited on 11-10-2011. The date for holding physical balloting was 18-12-2011, which had taken place throughout Pakistan. The results received from all the polling stations established throughout the country. The total number of votes to elect the Senior Vice Chairman was 17452, and the number of votes, polled at polling station, Karachi East, was 1308. The respondent No, 4 circulated the list of elected candidates for the term 2012-2014 and notified in the press declared the petitioner as returned candidates for the office of Senior Vice-Chairman. The respondent No, 5 challenged the aforesaid results before Islamabad High Court through Writ Petition No,3506 of 2011, wherein the present petitioner was arrayed as respondent No,
7. On 6-6-2012 the above Writ Petition was disposed of with direction "that after notifying the returned candidates, meeting of Governing Body, may be summoned, immediately.
However, all beneficiaries/returned candidates of notice dated 24-12-2011/declaration of returned candidates, who are likely to be excluded by the exclusion of results of polling station, Karachi (East), may seek their remedy, if any, in accordance with law applicable". In view of the above order the respondent No, 4 circulated the revised list of elected candidates for the term 2012-2014 and notified in the press. The respondent No,5 was declared / returned candidate for the office of Senior Vice-Chairman.
22. The petitioner being aggrieved with the letter dated 29-6-2012 and agenda for 12th meeting of PEC Governing Body for term 2012-14 was scheduled on 11-7-2012, filed the present petition before this Court on 10-7-2012. This Court while issuing notice to the respondents through fax restrained the respondent No, 5 to take oath of his office till next date of hearing. The notice was duly served upon all the respondents including respondent No,
5. On 14-7-2012 the respondent No, 4 circulated the agenda of 13th meeting of Election Committee for recounting of votes as decided in 12th meeting of Election Committee scheduled on 21-7-2012 at PEC HQ Islamabad. The respondent No, 5 along with other candidates challenged the letter dated 14-7-2012 for recounting of votes before Islamabad High Court by filing Writ Petition No, 2400 of 2012 and obtained stay order. On 26-7-2012 this Court passed consent order for recounting of the votes in presence of the parties.
23. During course of arguments on review application on 3-11-2012 the parties were present along with their learned counsel. The Court asked a specific question from respondent No, 5 whether he has been served upon the notice issued by this Court on 10-7-2012 or not. He replied in affirmative.
On further query, why you did not bring into notice of the Islamabad High Court about pendency of present petition, he categorically stated that, after receiving the notice issued by this Court, he contacted his advocate Mr. Athar Minhallah along with copy of the said notice, who after going through the same advised me to go Karachi and engage counsel there to contest the present petition. When confronted, respondent No, 5 stated that no mention has been made in the Writ Petition filed by him before Islamabad High Court regarding pendency of present petition. The above act of respondent No, 5 clearly shows that the matter in which the respondent No, 5 approached the Islamabad High Court and obtained stay order by concealment of the facts was not with clean hands. The Writ Petition No, 2400 of 2012 was drafted by Mr. Athar Minallah, advocate, who also very much aware of the pendency of present petition. Not only this but the respondent No,5 through Mr. Athar Minallah approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan by filing C.P.L.A.
No, 1421 Of 2012 against the order dated 26-7-2012. The mala fide is apparent on the face of record that at one hand respondent No, 5 sought review of order dated 26-7-2012 and on the other he approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the same order. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for applicant particularly the case of Gohar Aman Khan (Supra) and quoted the observation of the Court in his written synopsis goes against him/respondent No,
5. In the case in hand, Mr. Athar Minhallah, advocate who was in full knowledge of pendency of present petition at Karachi filed Writ Petition No, 2400 of 2012 on 20-12-3012 at Islamabad High Court on behalf of the respondent No, 5 and other candidates without disclosing and even mentioning the case number of the present petition and obtained stay order in the said petition by concealment of the facts.
24. It may also not be out of place to mention here that if the respondent No, 5 brings into notice of the Islamabad High Court about pendency of the present petition, the Islamabad High Court would have passed the order in consideration of fact that have been concealed and when such fact came to the notice on 27-10-2012 the Islamabad High Court has not extended the stay order passed on 20-7-2012, copy of the order dated 27-10-2012 is enclosed as Annexure-Q with the written synopsis filed by respondents Nos. 2 to 4. However, the principle of res judicata would certainly not apply on the present petition as the latter petition filed earlier in time. It is also pertinent to mention that not only the respondent No, 5 concealed the facts from Islamabad High Court but he also concealed filing of Writ Petition No, 2400 of 2012 and obtaining stay order from this Court. We, therefore, observe that the action of the respondent No, 5 throughout the proceedings is based on mala fide. The judgments quoted by the learned counsel for the applicants are on different facts have no relevancy with the case in hand. We may hold without hesitation that this Court is fully competent to pass any appropriate order. The petitioner as well as respondents Nos.2 to 4 in their counter-affidavits categorically stated that the order dated 26-7- 2012 was passed with consent of all the parties and in presence of respondent No, 5 has gone un- rebutted and unchallenged as no affidavit-in-rejoinder has been filed by respondent No,
5. It is settled law that if a categorical statement not rebutted has to be accepted as true.
25. Needless to observe that order for recounting of votes, which sought to be reviewed, has attained finality. Nazir has submitted his report on 3-9-2012 wherein it has been stated that sealed boxes received from respondent No, 3 were shown to all parties and all the boxes were opened in presence of respondent No, 5, Registrar PEC and others. The recounting of votes was done by Nazir with the help of branch officials in presence of all parties by relying upon the "Instructions of Polling" issued by PEC for election in question. As per report of the Nazir, the petitioner Engr. I. A. Osmani secured 287 votes whereas respondent No,5 Engr. Al-Kazim Mansoor secured 151 votes.
26. It may be observed that the scope of a review is very limited. It cannot be used as a substitute for a regular appeal, which is competent on a question of facts and law. The mere fact that a Court has taken an erroneous view on the question of fact or on the question of law would not attract the review jurisdiction, which grounds are eminently amenable in an appeal. No doubt, the grant of review petition is a discretionary matter and the Court is not bound to grant the same in every case, but at the same time it is a well-settled principle of law that every judicial discretion is to be exercised reasonably on sound basis and not arbitrarily or capriciously and capable of correction by a Court of appeal. In the instant case no ground exists to review the order dated 26-7-2012.
Resultantly, the review application (C.M.A. No, 16234 of 2012) being misconceived and frivolous is hereby dismissed.