' ABDUL LATIF KHAN, J.---Through this petition under section 114, C.P.C. Read with section 151 C.P.C.
Along with Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, the petitioner seeks the review of the judgment dated 10-1-2012 passed by this court in C.M bearing No,427 of 2011.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that this court was influenced from the arguments of respondents, who disclosed certain facts though not related to the instant case and pronounced the judgment which needs clarification and review. It was added that respondent stressed in arguments at the time of decision by this court that upper age limit is 60 years, whereas petitioner was aged about 68 years and cannot lay claim to the post of Naib Tehsildar as serving Naib Tehsildar has been accommodated and petitioner has been dealt with in accordance with law, which is incorrect as petitioner was aged about 62 years at the time of his adjustment in the project. It was argued that policy of provincial government is not applicable to employee of Gomal Zam Dam Project as it is not governed and continued by the provincial government, rather framed by WAPDA. It was argued that regular employee and department cannot be absorbed in Gomal Zam Dam Project and case of one Muhammad Jamil, Naib Tehsildar for deputation was refused by the competent authority on this score alone. It was argued that due to non-availability of post of Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner as local government was in field at the time of appointment of petitioner and verification was required from respondent, otherwise office of respondent has nothing to do with the matter.
3. As against that learned Additional Advocate General contended that instant petition is not maintainable as no disobedience was petition committed by the respondent and due to this reason, contempt of court was rightly dismissed. He argued that services of he petitioner along with others were on contract due to deficiency of staff and have been relieved as substituted by regular employees and petitioner having attained the age of over 68 years and thus cannot lay claim to the post on which already Naib Tehsildar in service has been accommodated.
4. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel of the parties and perused the record with their valuable assistance.
5. The petitioner assailed the order bearing No,14636/Admn/ PF(AG) dated 28-7-2010, vide writ petition bearing No,578/2010 whereby his contract employment as Naib Tehsildar was withdrawn by the respondent, which was disposed of by this court on 11-5-2011, with direction to respondent No,2 to treat him in accordance with law and as per rules/policy of the government on the subject.
6. The petitioner initiated contempt of court against the respondent through C.M. No,427/2011, on account of his failure to comply with the order of this court dated 11-5-2011 in Writ Petition No,578 of 2010. It was averred that application was submitted to the respondent on 17-5-2011 for compliance of court order, but refused by the respondent through reply dated 28-6-2011 and thus liable to be proceeded against for disobedience to the order of this court.
7. A look of record reveals that petitioner was appointed on contract basis as Naib Tehsildar Land Acquisition, Gomal Zam Dam Project, D.I.Khan on 30-4-2005, due to shortage of in service Naib Tehsildars, extended for different periods and finally terminated as his services were no more required. He questioned the termination in writ petition bearing No,578/2010, wherein direction was made to the respondent to treat him in accordance with law, who complied with the order of this court as the subsequent policy governing the appointments against project posts notified on 28-7- 2010 was not attracted to the petitioner. He was considered but found not eligible for extension for variety of reasons and as such contempt of court was dismissed by this court on 10-1-2012.
8. Through instant petition, the petitioner seeks for review of order passed by this court on 10-1-2012, vide which contempt of court was dismissed, mainly on the ground that this court has passed altogether different order contrary to previous order passed in writ petition No,578 of 2010, which is misconceived, as contempt of court proceedings were mainly dismissed on the ground that respondent had shown no disobedience to the order of this court, as the petitioner was considered but found not fit for extension, as this court had only directed the respondent to treat the petitioner in accordance with law, who did so and as such could not be held responsible for any disobedience.
9. Section 114 of C.P.C. Deals with review of decree or order, which is as follow:-- "114. [Review.-(1) Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved--
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.
2. Nothing contained in subsection (1) shall apply to a review of any judgment pronounced or order made by the Supreme Court].
' Order XLVII, C.P.C. Is also reproduced for convenience:- "1 . Application for review of judgment.---(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved--
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from. Which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by 'a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the 'discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment of the Court which passed the decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applied for the review" .
10. A glance of these provisions enumerates the powers of court to review its orders, subject to certain conditions envisaged therein. None of the conditions required for review of decree or order are found in the instant petition. The petitioner was unable to point out any infirmity or perversity in the impugned order.
11. Quite apart from this, the instant petition is not maintainable as the relevant provisions to review an order are not meant to correct wrong decisions rather invoked mainly for correcting errors. An order based on erroneous assumption of facts or overlooking something obvious or important or without adverting to the provisions of law or departing from undisputed construction of law and Constitution, may be reviewed but if he apply this test to the instant matter, no error committed in the impugned order and when confronted with the situation the learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to meet the query and as to how instant issue is amenable to extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court and what are the errors sought to be corrected through instant petition and in such scenario, the instant petition is misconceived. We see no ground to review the order of this court dated 10-1-2012 passed in C.M (C.O.C) No,427/2011.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the present review petition being bereft of merit stands dismissed.