' IKRAMULLAH KHAN, J.---The petitioner through the instant petition has sought for review of the judgment of this Court delivered thereof in W.P. No 407-P/ 2013 inter alia on the following grounds:- -
(I) That the Writ Petition No, 407-P 2013 was dismissed due to lack of assistance, and non- availability of the counsel for the petitioner.
(II) That the decided Writ Petition No, 407-P/2013 was filed by the learned advocate Mian Mohibullah Kaka Khel, and no other learned counsel was, engaged by the petitioner, in this regard, but the learned counsel engaged thereof in COC No, 53-P of 2013, argued the decided writ petition without authority in this regard.
(III) That the learned counsel of petitioner Mian Mohibullah Kaka Khel though marked his appearance thereof with the reader of this Court, but due to his engagement in business of other cases fixed before other.Hon'ble Benches, was not given right of audience in this regard thereof.
(IV) That the operative 'part of the judgment in W.P. No, 407-P/2013 is erroneous to the facts available thereof on record, and the observation of the Court, in regard to the authority/locus standi of petitioner and the finding thereof in regard to section 11, C.P.C. 1908 are against the available facts and circumstances of the record.
(V) That the petitioner was, condemned unheard as an unauthorized counsel represented the petitioner, without fully briefed in this regard.
2. The learned counsel, Mian Mohibullah Kaka Khel, while arguing the instant Review Petition contended thereof, that the petitioner was duly appointed attorney of Afghan Refugees, residing thereof in various camps scattered over the whole of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and a representative of Afghan Refugees but this Court, did not appreciat this aspect of the case, and declared him an irrelevant person in the subjudiced matter thereof; that as no final judgments had been passed in regard to subjudice matter thereof by any Court in this regard, which had ever, exclusively determined the controversy between the party, and as such the finding of this Court, given thereof in operative part of the judgment dated 23-5-2013 may be amended as prayed for.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel, representing the respondents on notice, contended thereof, that Mian Mohibullah Kaka Khel the learned counsel for the petitioner was superseded by the most senior advocate of Peshawar High Court, Mr. Abdul Latif Afridi, while at the occasion of hearing, the learned counsel of petitioner in instant review petition was present in the Court room but he never raised objection over the arguments of newly engaged counsel thereof. Further contended, that full opportunity of hearing was availed by the petitioner's counsel, represented the petitioner thereof. He contended, that all the other grounds in regard to amendment, in the judgment dated 23-5-2013 does not validly constitute ground for review of the judgment, however, he added that if petitioner, felt aggrieved of the judgment, he would have availed the opportunity of appeal before the Apex Court as provided thereof under Article 184 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
4. We scrupulously scrutinized our previous judgments in juxta position to the grounds raised thereof in the memorandum of the review petition as well as the arguments delivered thereof before this Court and anxious consideration was attended thereto, the arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The available record, revealed that, Mr. Abdul Latif Afridi, the senior counsel of Peshawar High Court was given patient hearing and each and every aspect of the case was fully discussed by the learned counsel, to the best of his abilities and almost knowledge, while arguing the case. The petitioner was in attendance too as revealed from the attendance roll kept thereof by the official of the Court when, his duly authorized learned senior counsel was delivering his arguments on behalf of the petitioner, but he never dissented thereof, nor ever prayed otherwise, for further arguments by his superseded learned counsel in this regard.
6. No written authorization is required for an advocate when his client present in Court and acquainted thereof. The grounds raised here in the instant petition for review of our previously decided judgment dated 23-5-2013 in Writ Petition No, 407-P/2013 are grounds, might be or ought to be raised thereof in case of appeal against the judgment of this Court, but could not be good grounds for review under the provision of C.P.C. 1908, contained there under section 114 and Order XLVII.
"Section 114 of C.P.C.
1.908 envisaged there under as: - [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.] Likewise, Order XLVII, C.P.C. Stipulated as;-
(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 to 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 applies for the review.
7. It would be pertinent to be noted herewith, that the petitioner, is not by any stretch of imagination, the consumer of respondents, nor he filed the Writ Petition No, 407-P/20.13 decided on 23-5-2013 in representative capacity as required under the provision of Rule 10 of Order I of C.P.C.
1908. The petitioner, never alleged thereof that he was a duly authorized attorney of Afghan Refugees nor any Afghan Refugee was party to the above stated writ petition. No valid authority, the petitioner still hold to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, nor the petitioner be termed as an aggrieved person as envisaged thereof under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, irrespective of his actual nationality and place of birth or abode.
8. The Afghan Commissionerate, who is the competent legal body,' in this regard, never found themselves aggrieved of any action or omission of the respondents in this regard. No doubt, that respondents is a limited company, and as such, direolion in this regard to respondent, also questioned the jurisdiction of this Court while setting thereof in its constitutional jurisdiction, but kept in view, the status of Afghan Refugees, this Court, was pleased enough to extent the full concession which was prayed thereof in Writ Petition No, 407-P/ 2013 except that petitioner was not admitted thereof as an aggrieved person, without locus standi to seek relief of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
9. Review has a very limited scope, it may be exercised in the event of discovery of new matter of evidence, which after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made and such power may also be exercised on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record but review proceeding cannot partake rehearing of a decided case, where full opportunity of hearing is given to all the interested parties attended thereto the previous proceeding of the Court. No party be permitted to convert a review petition into an appeal. The main object of jurisdiction of review as envisaged under the provision of section 114 and Order XLVII, C.P.C., 1908 is to enable the Court to correct its own mistake or error, to prevent injustice but the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the grounds already discussed and dilated upon in the impugned judgment in a comprehensive manner. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any mistake or error on the face of record for review of the impugned judgment. .However the questions, the learned .Counsel raised and stressed with vehemence, may be good ground for appeal but hardly could be considered ground for review of the impugned judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No 407-P/2013.
10. I fortify my this view by the judgment delivered thereof in case of Gillani and Co. v. D.D. Wild Life and Parks (2010 CLC 301) and the case of Ghulam Qadir v. Ghulam Abbas (2010 GBLR 325).
11. Keeping in view the reasons stated hereinabove, this review petition is accordingly dismissed.