1. ' SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, J.--- This application seeks the review of impugned order dated 7-12-2011, passed by the appellate court/respondent No,3 on application under Order XLVII rule 1 read with section 151, C.P.C. For review against the judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal.
2. No,22 of 2011, through which the respondent challenged the judgment and decree in Civil Suit No,1102 of 2005 dated 11-12-2010, passed by the respondent No,4, on the facts and grounds as set forth in the memo of Civil Revision Application with the following prayer:- "(1) To admit this revision application for regular hearing and call the record and proceeding of Suit No,1102 of 2005 from the court of 3rd Senior Civil Judge Karachi South.
(2) To suspend the operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 11-12-2010 and direct the learned trial Court not to proceed further in the Civil Suit No,1102 of 2005 and Execution No,2 of 2011 as per impugned judgment and decree "till final disposal of this application to set aside the order dated 1-12-2011 passed on review application and set aside the judgment dated 29-10-2011 and decree dated 4-11-2011 passed in Civil Appeal No,22 of 2011 by the respondent No,3 and remand back the Suit No,1102 of 2005 for fair disposal on merit after recording the evidence of applicant.
(3) Cost of the application.
(4) Any other relief(s) as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."
3. ' The impugned order dated 7-12-2011 is a short one, needs to be reproduced hereunder: --- "Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the contents of instant application so also the judgment dated 29-10-2011 passed by this Court.
4. ' It may be mentioned here that this Court passed the judgment dated 29-10-2011, dismissing the caption appeal, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No,1 so also considering the material available on record.
5. ' In view of above circumstances, therefore, present application merits no consideration, stands dismissed in limine, with no order as to cost."
6. ' I have considered the arguments advanced from both sides and carefully perused the material available on the record.
7. ' Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the impugned judgment passed by respondent No, 3, without considering the material available on record, is erroneous in law and fact. He next argued that the applicant is a bona fide purchaser and is in possession of the subject property as the considerable sale amount is paid and trial Court acted one-sided and impugned judgment and decree are the worst example of the non-reading of the evidence and pleadings. That the respondent No,3 has utterly failed to consider the defence of the applicant and wrongly held that the applicant has no case. That the respondent No,3 did not consider that the applicant filed earlier Suit bearing No,1756 of 2002, which was dismissed by the transferee court due to non- prosecution but admittedly no court motion was served upon the applicant and an application under Order IX, Rule 9 read with section 151, C.P.C. Is pending for adjudication.
8. ' Learned counsel for the respondent has, on the other hand argued that the purpose of filing of, this revision application is just to linger on the matter unnecessarily as the errors pointed out by the applicant's counsel in this revision application are not such which could materially affect the judgment of the appellate court and notwithstanding the errors, conclusion reached at by the trial Court in judgment dated 29-10-2011.
9. ' Floating mistakes on the surface of the record in the judgment dated 29-10-2011, delivered by the learned appellate court have not been properly explained as the learned counsel for the applicant has admitted non-filing of photo stat of review application before this Court, which he has filed before the learned appellate Court. Therefore, the contention and grounds raised to review the judgment by the trial Court are remained unexplained. It appears that in grounds of present revision application, judgment dated 29-10-2011 has been challenged on its merits. It is an admitted fact that no plea of error of jurisdiction, illegal assumption, non-exercise or irregular exercise of jurisdiction has been agitated as the revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked against conclusion of law and fact which do not in any way affect the jurisdiction of the Court, no matter, however, wrong or perverse, the decision might be either on a question of fact or law. In the present case, the points/grounds agitated by the applicant do not depict that the learned trial Court or appellate court have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction as vested, or to have acted in the exercise, of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Revisional jurisdiction under section 115(1)(a)(b)(c) does pot confer any substantive right as the right to move in revision is merely on the mentioned ground of assumption of jurisdiction, illegally. However, an erroneous decision on point of law or fact in consequence of which the court resumes jurisdiction will be revisable under clauses (a) (b) and
(c) of section 115(1), C.P.C. It appears that by filing the review application, the applicant intended to change the judgment as a whole, which the learned appellate court did not allow by order dated 7-12-2011.
10. ' Reliance may conveniently be placed on Anwar Zaman and 5 others v. Bahadur Sher and others (2000 SCMR 431), Abdul Hameed v. Ghulam Muhammad 1987 SCMR 1005, Haft Muhammad Zaman v. Zafar Ali Khan and others (PLD 1986 SC 88), Muhammad Bakhsh v.Muhammad Ali (1984 SCMR 504).
11. ' From perusal of the record PLD 1962 SC 335 is that a review of judgment on the ground of mistake of law or wrong decision on the merits is not contemplated by Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code.
12. ' In any view of the matter, stated above, I reached at the irresistible conclusion that the impugned order is not suffering from any gross irregularity or illegality and the learned appellate court has rightly dismissed the review application filed after pronouncement of judgment. Resultantly, the revision application filed against the impugned order dated 7-12-2011, reproduced above, having no merits for consideration, is hereby dismissed.