' Petitioner seeks review of this Court's order dated 12.8.2015 through which Writ Petition 19907 of 2015 was dismissed by this Court.
2. In addition to the grievances being voiced through the captioned Review Application the counsel for the petitioner argued that there were actually three points on which this Review Petition revolves which are:
(i) The petitioner was not afforded a proper hearing, and the case law referred by him were not cited nor discussed in the impugned judgment, by the learned Division Bench of this Court.
(ii) That the order was forthwith announced in the open court, therefore, on this ground the petitioner has a right to request the Court for a re-hearing of the matter as the order orally pronounced was not a valid order in the eye of law. Reliance was placed on 1997 SCM R 209.
(iii) That every accused under Article 10-A of the Constitution has a fundamental right to be represented through a counsel, even immediately after his arrest and at investigation stage, but this point has not been touched in the impugned order under review, and the learned Division Bench of this Court emphasized on the point of right of giving an opportunity for representation only to the extent of the trial against the accused.
3. Referring to the Civil Miscellaneous No. 6390 of 2015 filed with the Review Petition, the counsel for the Petitioner contended that the petitioner having no legs cannot be hanged in terms of the relevant Pakistan Prison Rules 1978.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. We have carefully read through the Judgment impugned. The Learned Counsel was unable to point out any infirmity or perversity in the said Judgment. The points raised by him have been discussed in the impugned Judgment elaborately. The main objective of Review under section 114 read with Order XLVII of the Civil Procedure Code is to enable the Court to correct its own mistake or error to prevent injustice. But no such substantial mistake or error in the judgment could be pointed out by the Counsel. Review has a very limited scope and is permissible and maintainable if conditions in Rule 1 of Order XLVII of the Civil A Procedure Code were fulfilled and not otherwise.
Review power was only to be exercised on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record but under the garb of a Review proceedings re-hearing of a decided case is not warranted, where full opportunity of hearing was given to all the parties. It cannot be permitted to convert a Review Petition in to an appeal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan has held in 2010 SCM R 1036 Mehmood Hussain Lark and others Versus Muslim Commercial Bank Limited and others' that "incorrectness of a conclusion arrived at after a conscious perusal of record and in depth examination of evidence cannot be made a ground for review because to permit a review on the ground of incorrectness would amount to granting the Court jurisdiction of re-hearing appeals against its own judgment".
6. All factual and legal grounds available to the petitioner raised by the learned counsel, were duly considered, and dealt with, learned counsel for the petitioner is attempting to re-open and re- argue the case afresh, which course of action is not permissible while hearing the Review Application. Consequently, no case for review is made out and this petition being misconceived and devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. And upon dismissal of the captioned Review Application, Civil Miscellaneous No. 6390 of 2015 automatically stands dismissed.