' LAL JAN KHATTAK, J.---Through this single judgment I propose to dispose of Review Petitions Nos.55-D, 177-D, 179-D and 181-D all of 2013 as common question of law and fact is involved therein.
2. Short facts giving rise to these review petitions are that government land measuring about 3129 kanals and 16 marlas was given on lease to the petitioners by the Collector D.I.Khan on 7-9-2006 against a lease money of Rs,200 per kanal per annum for a period of ten years commencing from 1-10-2006. In pursuance of the lease orders, lease mutations were attested in favour of the petitioners. However, the Provincial Government later on decided to cancel the leases vide orders dated 4-7-2007. These orders were challenged in civil suits by the review-petitioners. Their suits were dismissed followed by dismissal of their appeals and ultimately their revisions and RFAs too were dismissed by this Court through a common judgment delivered in Civil Revision No,344 of 2011 decided on 9-9-2013. Review of the afore-said judgment is now sought through the instant petitions.
3. Syed Abid Hussain Bukhari, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the review petitions contended that the record annexed with the review petitions prima facie indicates that lease of the government land was granted to the petitioners not only in accordance with law but also in a transparent manner after observing all the required codal formalities. The learned counsel then argued that in light of the record annexed with these review petitions, the lease granting orders of the Collector are under a specified mandate vide letter dated 12-12-2001, issued by the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Revenue Department. The learned counsel then contended that the District Lease Committee in its meeting held on 5-4-2006 has approved the lease process in"favour of the petitioners. The learned counsel lastly argued that no finding has been given by this Court on the huge investment made by the petitioners in the leased out land as such a legal error and mistake is there in the judgment review of which is sought.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the review petitioners and also gone through the record of the case.
5. Main emphasis of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the documents annexed with the review petitions clearly show that the suit land has legally and lawfully come to the petitioners on lease and there is no underhand deal for securing the s, leased out area. The documents refereed to by the learned counsel have been produced by the petitioners after a period of six years. The suits were filed on 5-11-2007 and the instant review petitions have been instituted on 30-9-2013. So at this belated stage the referred documents are of no help to the petitioners. It is not the case of the petitioners that something obvious or important available on the record of the case has been overlooked or a provision of law has not been adverted to in the judgment. Likewise no legal error or mistake of law floating or apparent on the surface of the judgments review of which is sought by the petitioners was pointed out. Subsequent discovery of some documents cannot be made a ground for review of a judgment after exhausting all the remedies provided in the courts of law.
Similarly no document can be taken into consideration for a review which is filed with a purpose and object to fill a lacuna highlighted in the judgment review of which is sought because if such practice is allowed then there will be no end to a litigation Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the recent discovery of certain documents has necessitated a review of the judgment dated 9-9-2013 of this Court is not tenable.
6. The remaining point that no finding, regarding payment/compensation of standing crops on the leased out land has been given in the judgment, suffice it to say that the same is there in para No,13 of the judgment. Even otherwise any omission in the judgment which does not have a direct bearing on the judgment is no ground for review as the same may be impugned in the next higher forum.
7. For what has been discussed above, I am of the considered view that no case for a review of the judgment of this Court delivered on 9-9-2013 in the above cases, has been made out by the petitioners, therefore, the instant review petitions being bereft of any merit are dismissed in limine along with accompanying C.Ms. Review dismissed.