' SHAH KHAWAR, J.---This petition has been filed under Section 114 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C., seeking a review of the order dated 30.06.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber in Civil Revision No,813 of 2014.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent Tahir Saleem filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is in occupation of the disputed property as an owner and the petitioner Mst. Rani Fareeda was just Benamidar. The suit was decreed by the learned Civil Court on 06.05.2013, which was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Multan. During pendency of' the appeal, the petitioner on 04.01.2014 moved an application under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. For production or additional evidence. The said documents were the receipts of deposit of amounts in favour of the Cantonment Board made by the petitioner in respect of House Tax regarding the disputed property from the year 1997 to 2014. It was averred that the said documents could not be placed along with the plaint as, being lady she was not aware of their importance and were found by the petitioner later from her house, and that the same were necessary to be admitted as additional evidence. The application was contested by the respondents by way of filing written reply. The learned appellate court after hearing arguments of the parties dismissed the application of the petitioner vide order dated 07.05.2014.
3. Feeling aggrieved, by order dated 07.05.2014 passed by the first appellate court, the petitioner filed civil revision before this Court. Learned Single Judge in Chamber after hearing the parties dismissed the Civil Revision vide order dated 30.06.2014. The learned Single Judge in Chamber while interpreting the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. Observed as under:- "Perusal of the above provision of law, when made applicable to the present case clearly denotes that the petitioner is equipped with no such circumstance so as to entitle her to claim for production of additional evidence. The order impugned herein has been passed on sound reasoning and does not call for any interference in absence of any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect.
' Resultantly, this petition has no force and the same is dismissed. "
4. Against the order dated 30.06.2014, passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber the instant petition has been filed. The petitioner's counsel through his arguments has tried to re-open the merits of the main case, which have already been discussed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber while passing the impugned order in C.R. .No,813 of 2014. When confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that this is essential as the order, under review, is silent about case law which was cited before the learned Single Judge in Chamber. We are not persuaded to accept this contention. In fact, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any error apparent on the face of record which is an important ingredient to invoke review jurisdiction. In this context the case of Raja Prithvi Chand Lai Choudhury v. Sukhraj Rai and others (AIR 1941 Federal Court 1), may be cited wherein it was held as follows:-- "The Court will not sit as a Court of appeal from its own decisions, nor will it entertain applications to review on the ground only that one of the parties in the case conceives himself to be aggrieved by the decision. It would in our opinion be intolerable and most prejudicial to the public interest if cases once decided by the Court could be re-opened and reheard. "
' Similar is the view of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan which has been expressed in the case of M. Moosa v. Muhammad and others (1975 SCM R 115), and the relevant extract thereof reads as under:-- "It is only available in certain special circumstances, namely, where some relevant evidence has been discovered which could not, in spite of due diligence, have been known to the party or been produced at the time of hearing or the Court has overlooked some material questions of fact or of law which would have a bearing on the decision or there is otherwise some apparent mistake or error on the fact of the record. The ground that the Court has fallen into error in deciding on a particular question, or that a new ground which could have been urged was not urged at the original hearing, is not a ground for review, for, a review is not an appeal and cannot be allowed to be treated as an appeal".
' Lastly, it will be quite relevant to quote a judgment passed by the learned Division Bench of the Sindh High Court, Karachi in the case of Muhammad Azam and another v. Collector of Customs (PREV.), Headquarter, Karachi and 3 others (2005 CLC 58 Karachi), authored by their Lordships Mr. Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Mr. S. Ali Aslam Jafri, JJ. This judgment is applicable to facts of this case on all fours. In this case it has been observed as follows: ' The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner for seeking review of the impugned order dated 30.06.2014 is that while passing such order, learned Division Bench did not properly appreciate the case of "M. Hameed Ullah Khan v. Director Customs Intelligence and 3 others" (1992 CLC 57).
' In our view this may be a ground for consideration in appeal but looking the limited scope of review it cannot be made basis for review of order dated 12.08.1998."
5. The nutshell of the above discussion is that petitioner seeking review of order must show that an error is apparent on the face of the record. Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a matter of routine or to re-hear a case which has already been decided and that too after conscious deliberation on a question of fact and law. Thus, the contention raised by petitioner's counsel is neither tenable nor may be pressed into service in review jurisdiction.
6. Upshot of above discussion is that this petition lacks merit and, therefore, the same is dismissed in limine.