M. TABBASSUM AFTAB ALVI, C.J.--- The supra titled review petition has been addressed against the impugned judgment dated 08.06.2017, whereby writ petition filed by petitioner was dismissed in limine.
2. Precise facts culminating into filing of the instant review petition are that petitioner was serving as Secretary to Government in BPS-20. It is alleged that competent authority/Prime Minister Azad Govt. of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, approved promotion of petitioner as Senior Member Board of Revenue BPS-21, equivalent to post of Additional Chief Secretary General, i,e, from date of retirement of one Khalil Ahmed Qureshi, (the then SMBR), vide notification dated 02.12.1997, w,e,f, 16.05.1997. The said promotion order of petitioner was passed downwards to Chief Secretary/ Secretary Services and General Administration Department, for implementation and issuance of formal notification as in those days there was no requirement or necessity of routing matter of promotion to posts of BPS-21, through Selection Board. The respondents instead of issuing formal notification, the decades back implemented and acted upon notifications of promotions of petitioner against the posts of Secretary to Government B-20, D.G. Information B-20, Director Information B-19, Deputy Director Information B-18, and Assistant Director B-17, were retrospectively recalled and ultimately he was dismissed from the Grade B-16, vide notification dated 01.04.1998. As all the aforesaid promotion notifications of petitioner were rescinded, who was also dismissed from service, hence, he constrained to challenge the said Govt. notification through Writ Petition No,215/1998, titled "Mujahid Husain Naqvi v. Azad Government and others", before this Court, which was accepted vide order dated 05.10.1999. The aforesaid order of this Court was challenged by respondents before the Supreme Court, in which, difference of opinion arose between two Hon'ble Judges of the Apex Court, resultantly, matter was placed before third Judge, who was at the then time, the Hon'ble Chief Justice (Mr. Justice Sardar Said Muhammad Khan). However, on application of petitioner, the learned Chief Justice, declined to hear the case, hence, the order of this Court was declared to be the judgment of the Supreme Court. It is alleged that Prime Minister of the time, granted sanction/approval for issuance of notification of reinstatement in service of petitioner in B- 21, vide order dated 19.09.2009. It is further alleged that the Prime Minister also reaffirmed promotion order of petitioner in B-21, earlier passed on 02.12.1997. It is claimed that in the meantime, a bureaucratic conspiracy was hatched against petitioner by some interested persons and aforesaid order of the Prime Minister dated 19.09.2009, was recalled in so-called review, which was not competent because earlier orders were also passed upon review petition. It is contended that the learned Acting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, as third Judge, dismissed the appeal filed by Govt. vide order dated 08.05.2010. Thereafter, number of orders were obtained by petitioner from the competent authority/Chief Executive of the State, for his reinstatement and retirement from service, which were revoked in sheer violation of law. It is stated that despite all obstacles petitioner was able to obtain new order from the Prime Minister on 26.10.2014, which was not implemented by respondents for mala fide reasons, hence, he filed writ petition for issuance of direction to implement the aforesaid order of the Prime Minister. The aforesaid writ petition was, however, dismissed in limine through the impugned judgment dated 08.06.2017, hence, the instant review petition has been filed.
3. The review petition was filed by petitioner on 12.07.2017, and case was fixed for preliminary arguments on 15.09.2017. The petitioner was represented by Syed Zulqarnain Raza Naqvi, Advocate, however, he did not appear to argue case, on 15.09.2017, 11.10.2017, and 19.10.2017, respectively. The petitioner was, therefore, granted an opportunity to file written arguments vide order dated 01.11.2017, however, instead of filing the same, he filed an application for verbal hearing, which is frivolous only to prolong case, hence, the same is rejected.
4. A perusal of file reveals that writ petition of petitioner was dismissed vide the impugned judgment 08.06.2017. The paragraph No,12, of the impugned judgment, in this regard, is reproduced as under:- "12. The epitome of above discussion is that, finding no substance in the instant writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed in limine with special costs of Rs,50,000/- to be deposited with the "Nazir" of this Court, within fortnight period."
5. The petitioner deliberately concealed the judgment of the Apex Court dated 09.10.2012, preferred an application before the Prime Minister, and succeeded to obtain an unlawful order of his reinstatement and promotion in BPS-21 since 02.12.1997, as well as retirement after attaining age of superannuation w,e,f, 27.09.2009, therefore, not invoked jurisdiction of this Court with clean hands, hence, he was imposed special costs of Rs,50,000/-. We are of the considered view, that there is no any illegality in the impugned Judgment dated 08.06.2017. The scope of review petition is very limited and case of petitioner does not fall in any of the eventuality as postulated under Order XLVII of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, read with Rule 43 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984.
6. The review petition can be entertained only if there is apparent mistake or error on the face of record, however, it cannot be entertained on the points which have already been authoritatively resolved. The aforesaid view finds support from case reported as "Muhammad Ramzan v. Lahore Development Authority, Lahore" (2002 SCM R 1336). The relevant extract is reproduced as under: - "We do not find any substance and merit in the submissions that the petitioner's case was not argued properly and, thus, he was seriously prejudiced. In our considered view this is hardly a ground for review of a final judgment as by its nature, the scope of review is restricted to some mistake or error apparent on the face of record, discovery or new or important matter or evidence, which, despite. due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner when the order was passed or for any other sufficient reason. None of the grounds, in our view, is made out in the present case with the necessary corollary that we are persuaded to dismiss this petition and refuse leave to appeal."
An identical proposition came under consideration before the Peshawar High Court in case titled "Akhtar Ali Khan v. Dilawar Khan and 5 others" [2015 CLC 872]. At page 874, of the report, it was held as under:- "8. Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. clearly laid down that the review proceedings cannot partake hearing of appeal/revision. Review also cannot be allowed on the discovery of some new material if such material was available at the time of trial, the appeal or the revision as the case may be.
The reliance can be taken in the case titled "Abdul Hakim and others v. Khalid Wazir" (2003 SCM R 1501)
9. The scope of review is very limited. The review is only allowed when there is error apparent on the face of the impugned judgment. The party could not be allowed to adjudicate the same facts which have already been decided."
7. The petitioner remained a senior Advocate of the Supreme Court, who concealed the judgment of the Apex Court dated 09.10.2012. The stance of petitioner was that he remained almost unconscious since 2010 to 2015, who failed to prove the aforesaid assertion of unconsciousness for such a pretty long time, therefore, the special cost has rightly been imposed by the Court as he was not expected to suppress the judgment of the Apex Court, supra.
8. The nub of above discussion is that admission of review petition will be a futile exercise, hence, finding no substance, the same is hereby dismissed without issuing notice to other side. The petitioner shall consequently act upon judgment dated 08.06.2017, pertaining to payment of special costs of Rs,50,000/- to be deposited with the Nazir/DDO of this Court, within one week period, failing which warrant of arrest shall be issued against him.