' IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, J.---This is a review application arising out of judgment passed by a learned Single Judge in Chambers on 25.05.2011, in Civil Revision No,723-D of 2004, when the same was allowed.
2. The learned counsel for the applicants has formulated the following points in support of his review application:-
(i) the suit was not maintainable;
(ii) the suit was barred under the provisions of Order II, Rule 2, C.P.C.;
(iii) the suit was hit by the principle of res judicata, particularly, explanation-IV to Section 11, C.P.C.;
(iv) in view of the provisions of Section 22 of The Specific Relief Act, 1877, the suit was not liable to be decreed; and that
(v) plea of law can be raised at any point of time.
' According to the learned counsel for the applicants, all above .Submissions were argued before the learned Judge in Chambers of this Court on 25.05.2011, but the same have not .Been taken into consideration; thus, the judgment, under review, is defective and by recalling it, the civil revision petition be heard on merits again.
3. We have gone through the judgment, under review. The learned Judge in Chambers has reproduced the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners in Para-4 of the judgment, under review, which contained no such points, as have been argued by the learned counsel. For the applicant today, in support of his review application. We have further inquired from the learned counsel as to whether any of the point agitated today, in support of the review application, was pleaded in the memo of civil revision petition, but the answer again is in negative.'
4. In review, the applicant has a limited scope and he cannot be allowed to exceed the limits, as have been provided in Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. Further, it is by now a settled position of law that, in the .Garb of review, the applicant cannot be allowed to re-open his case on merits.
5. The review applicants, in fact, want to introduce a new case, which has neither been taken in the pleadings of memo of civil revision petition, nor during arguments before the learned Judge in Chambers on .25.05.2011, and in fact, re-hearing of the case on merits is the intention of the applicants, which cannot be allowed.
6. The main emphasis of the learned counsel for the applicants remains to the effect that, a 'plea of law' can be raised at any stage of the proceedings.
' By arguing in such manner; firstly, the learned counsel for the applicants in an indirect way, has admitted that such pleas, which are being taken today, in support of review application, were neither made part of the pleadings in memo of civil revision petition nor were argued on 25.05.2011 before the learned Judge in Chambers of this Court and; for that reason the present pleas are being named by learned counsel for the review applicants as "pleas of law" with a competence to applicants to raise the same even for the first time in review jurisdiction. Secondly, again the learned counsel for the applicants is on wrong side on the question of interpretation.
7 "Review" as is defined in Black's Law Dictionary Sixth Edition is:- "to re-examine judicially or administratively consideration for purposes of correction a reconsideration second view or examination".
Keeping in view each and every definition of the term "Review" denotes to the position that, while exercising a review jurisdiction, a .Court or Tribunal would not allow the applicant to introduce any new point, which was not taken in the original proceedings by the side seeking review of earlier judgment or order and presence of a verdict of the Court on original side must be available on record, which would require to be re-examined or reconsidered, while exercising a review jurisdiction. When in view of the position on record, the points, which now have been formulated in support of the contentions of the learned counsel for the review applicants, were neither pleaded in the memo of civil revision petition nor argued before the learned Judge in Chambers at the time of final hearing of civil revision petition; hence, nothing is available before this Review Bench to re- consider or to re-examine. The plea of raising legal question, at any time of the proceedings is, therefore, not available to a review applicant.
8. The result of above discussion is that, we find no ground for review, hence, the review application, which merits dismissal is hereby dismissed.