' SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, J.---Through the instant appeal, appellants Zulifquar Ahmed and 14 others have impugned the order dated 5-10-2011, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby Review Application filed by them in Suit No.965 of 2003 was dismissed.
2. The relevant facts involved in the instant appeal are that one Mehmood Abbas filed Suit No.965 of 2003 for declaration, specific performance, possession and permanent injunction. It is stated in said suit that the appellants were necessary and proper parties to the proceedings but the respondent Mehmood Abbas did not implead them as defendants. Upon having knowledge of the pendency of the said suit, the appellants moved an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. For impleading them as defendants in the said Suit. In said application it was urged by the appellants that they were grandchildren of late Noor Muhammad, who died on 2-10-1960, leaving behind the agricultural land in Deh Samroti, District Mirpurkhas, details whereof are available with the District Officer, Board of Revenue Mirpurkhas as well as Board of Revenue Sindh, E.P. Wing 79, Pak Secretariat, Karachi and Secretary Rehabilitation S & R Central Record Office, Lahore. The appellants further alleged that Syed Hamid Rehmani son of Mehboob-ul-Haq and others have manipulated to usurp the land of Noor Muhammad, bearing SL No.211, Page- 37, dated 14-11-1995, Nabi Bux bearing SL No.51, Page-11 dated 15-12-1955, Hashim Ali bearing SL No. 406, Page 67, dated 21-12-1955 to the detriment of the genuine and legal entitlements of the legal claimants. In support of their claim, the appellants filed Entitlement Certificate regarding Rural/Urban Abandoned Area in India. Appellant No.1 submitted an application to the Secretary, Board of Revenue (RS&EP) Wing, 79, Pak Secretariat, Karachi, regarding illegal claim of land situated in Deh Samroti, Taluka Digri.
Appellants placed certain documents before the Court, showing that said Noor Muhammad was entitled to some or all of the subject property on the basis thereof, as such, they claimed that they were necessary and proper parties to the said suit and ought to be joined as defendants.
3. The said application of the appellants was heard by the learned Single Judge who, after hearing the arguments of the parties, dismissed the same vide order dated 9-8-2011. After dismissal of the said application, the appellants filed another C.M.A. No. 8959 of 2011, seeking review of the said Order, which also met with the same fate, hence the appellants have impugned the order dated 5- 10-2011 through the instant appeal.
4. The appellants have argued that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order, which is based on erroneous assumption of law and facts. It is further argued that learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the submissions of the appellants in respect of the property in question, which was based on substantial evidence and the same could only be proved during trial, but the learned Single Judge did not afford any opportunity to the appellants to prove their inherited interests in the suit property.
5. We have scanned the available record including the documents and carefully heard the arguments of the appellants as well as have gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.
6. The record reflects that the appellants had no right or interest in the subject property and were strangers to the same. It is further revealed that even their predecessor-in-interest Noor Muhammad during his life time attempted to set up some sort of his delusive claim over the property but the same had been decisively rejected by the Settlement Authorities. Constitution Petition bearing No.344 of 1986 was also filed wherein the appellants through their Attorney, namely, Zulifqar Ahmed had attempted to become a party in the said Petition, but the learned Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 23-12-2010 dismissed the said application of the appellants by observing that neither the appellants nor their predecessor-in-interest Noor Mohammad had any right or interest in the property. The document or form from the Settlement Authorities relied upon by the appellants did not in any manner whatsoever support their case.
7. We have also observed that the appellants are mainly relying upon the Form from Settlement proceedings which does not in any manner appear to establish or suggest any claim, right, title or interest of their predecessor-in-interest deceased Noor Mohammad in respect of the property in question. Even an inquiry was conducted by the Board of Revenue in which Zulifqar Ahmed also participated but same remained fruitless.
8. In case of Abdul Hakeem v. Khalid Wazir 2003 SCM R 1501, honourable Supreme Court has held that review proceedings could not partake of re-hearing of a decided case. Review could not be allowed on the ground of discovery of some new material, if same was available at the time of hearing of trial, appeal or revision, as the case might be, the ground not taken or raised at such earlier stages could not be allowed to be raised in review proceedings.
9. It is well settled law that review has a very limited scope and that is only to rectify any mistake apparent on its face or of record, or if some material evidence has not been taken into consideration or has been totally ignored while passing the order/judgment. For the purpose of review jurisdiction, it is for the Court to exercise it according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case, therefore, no party should be provided an easy way to cause unnecessary interference into the earlier conclusion of the Court.
10. We, for the aforesaid circumstances, are of considered view that the Single Judge of this Court did not ignore, unnoticed and overlooked any important issue while passing the impugned order.
Also, through the challenged order, the rights of the appellant were not affected as there were no rights to begin with, and due to which the appellants were not deprived of their alleged entitlement.
11. Consequently, the impugned order dated: 5-10-2011 does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, hence does not call for any interference and same is maintained and the instant appeal being devoid-of merits stand dismissed.
12. These are the reasons for the short order passed by this court on 23-10-2013, whereby the instant appeal was dismissed in limine.