' JAWAD HASSAN, J.-- Through this single judgment we intend to decide the instant Review Application as well as Criminal Original No.179-W/2017 titled Burhan ud Din Qureshi v. Capt.
(Retired) Zahid Saeed etc., as both the same are outcome of impugned order dated 16.01.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.14685/2014, whereby the writ Petition filed by the Applicant was allowed.
2. The Review Application is filed on the ground that while passing the order dated 16.01.2017, the learned Single Judge did not adhere to the fact that the Applicant did not challenge the order dated 28.09.2011, as such the writ petition was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that it is a principle of law that the basic order merges in the appellate order, therefore, the order dated 28.09.2011 has not been challenged and has attained finality whereas the order dated 01.09.2010 stands nowhere and the learned Single Judge has overlooked the said fact while passing the impugned order.
3. On the contrary, the Applicant Burhan ud Din has also filed a contempt petition praying therein that the Respondents be penalized for not complying with the order of this Court dated 16.01.2017.
4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the record.
5. From the perusal of record, it reveals that the Applicant namely Burhan ud Din filed W.P. No.14685 of 2014 before this Court which, was allowed vide the impugned order (dated 16.01.2017) against which the Respondents filed the instant Review Application. The learned counsel for the Respondents mainly contended that as the order dated 28.09.2011 had not been challenged by the Applicant, therefore, the same had attained finality but the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration this fact, as such the petition is liable to be dismissed. We have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Respondents and have gone through the impugned order sought to be reviewed. We are of the view that before an error can be a ground of review, it is necessary, that it must be one which is apparent on the face of the record and that it must be so manifest, so clear, that no Court could permit such an error to remain on record. 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 order. The' factum that a material irregularity was committed by the Court would not be adequate enough to warrant a review of the judgment unless the material irregularity be of a nature so as to convert the process of acting in aid of justice to a process of gross injustice. The Respondents have failed to point out an error in the impugned order floating on the face of record so as to justify our interference in exercise of review jurisdiction. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the case titled Mehmood Hussain Lark and others v. Muslim Commercial Bank and others (2010 SCM R 1036).
6. The scope of the Review Application is very limited and only the error floating on record can be seen while reviewing the order impugned and where the review of any lis changes its foundation, the same is not permitted. In this regard guidance can be sought from the case titled Shamim ur Rahman v. Fauji Foundation, Rawalpindi and another (1992 SCM R 1496) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, while dealing with the issue of review, has held as under: "It attempts to alter the very foundations of the judgment sought to be reviewed. The foundations were laid by the parties themselves. In review a retrial on such a fundamental and foundational issue cannot be permitted. It is against public policy. It is against the practice of the Court. It will be unfair to the Judges deciding the case".
7. Furthermore, along with the instant Review Application, the Respondents have also filed application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay. The said application reflects that no reason or justification has been extended by the Respondents justifying such delay in filing the Review Application which is the sole basis of the prayer made in the application for condonation of delay which is about four (4) days. The only ground/reason for condonation of delay mentioned in the application is "Departmental correspondence" which is neither cogent nor confidence inspiring to extend favour for condonation of delay.
8. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case titled Mst. Khalija Begum and 2 others v. Mst.
Yasmeen and 4 others (PLD 2001 Supreme Court 355) in which, while dealing with the question of limitation it has been categorically held that sufficient cause must be shown by the person seeking condonation of delay, which means "circumstances beyond control of party concerned" and that, nothing shall be deemed to be done in good faith which is not done with due care and attention.
9. We, therefore, adjudge, the delay in filing of Review application would not become liable to be condoned, as the Respondents have failed to show any sufficient reasons for condonation of such delay.
10. In view of above circumstanced, the instant Review Application IE is not maintainable, hence the same is hereby dismissed.
11. So far as the contempt petition is concerned, the Office is directed to fix the same before any learned Single Bench for its decision. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.