WIQAR AHMAD, J. This order is directed to dispose of the instant petition filed for review of order dated 29.05.2017 of the FATA Tribunal, Peshawar (hereinafter referred to as `Tribunal' ), which has been transferred to this Court as a result of merger of the area of Federally Administered Tribal Areas (hereinafter referred to as `FATA') in the Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa by way of 25th amendment to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `Constitution' ).
2. Petitioner No. 1 has filed an application before the Assistant Political Agent, Nawagai erstwhile Bajaur Agency (hereinafter referred to as `APA') on 15.09.2015, stating therein that he had been transporter by profession, and that he had purchased a passenger vehicle (Bus) bearing registration No. PA-0123 Model 1993 from respondent No. 1 namely Noor Zada. He had paid a sum of Rs. 400,000/- in lump sum while the remaining amount of sale was agreed to be paid to him in installments of Rs. 20,000/- per month. The vehicle was seized by a person in Peshawar who had disclosed to petitioner that he had some claim against the said vehicle prior to its sale to petitioner . He also asserted that respondent had sold him a disputed and tainted vehicle and that the amount paid by him may be made to be repaid to him.
3. The dispute was referred to a council of elders by the APA vide his order dated 29.09.2015 with mutual consent of the parties. The following terms of reference were also specified for decision of Jirga vide in the said order; a) Whether the claim of plaintiff is correct? b)Whether the counter claim of respondents are correct? c) What is the Rewaj of the area in such like cases? d) What is the recommendation of Jirga ?
The Jirga returned its verdict, whereby it recommended acceptance of counter claim of respondent Noor Zada for recovery of remaining amount against the petitioner . The APA agreed with decision of Jirga members and vide his order dated 28.12.2015, passed an order in terms of Jirga award in the following words; "As per Jirga since, witness is not responsible for payment of amount, hence respondent Haji Shaiber and Sahib Zaman are responsible for payment of Bus, Rs. 16,00,000/- to plaintiff according to agreement.
Since, the Jirga award is unanimous, there is no illegality and irregularity to interfere, hence, I accept the Jirga award and passed order accordingly ."
Appeal filed there-against was dismissed vide order dated 23.06.2016 of the then Commissioner FCR, Malakand Division. Revision petition filed before the Tribunal was also dismissed vide order dated 29.05.2017. Petitioners then filed an application for review of order of the Tribunal, which was pending there, when the area of erstwhile FATA was merged in the Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and regular system of adjudication got extended to the area of FATA by way of 25th amendment to the Constitution. The case in hand was then transferred to this Court for disposal.
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. Learned counsel for petitioners has tried to reopen the entire case and argue d the same on merits, but it is important to be noted that the instant petition was a review petition arising out of the erstwhile dispensation established through Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as `FCR' ). Principles of adjudication of laws of the regular system of adjudicati on cannot be applied to those proceedings and same has to be discerned on the touchstone available in FCR. Review jurisdiction of Tribunal was provided in Section 55-AA of FCR, which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference; "55AA. Review .-- The FATA Tribunal may, on an application of any person, tiled within thirty days, considering himself aggrieved of any decision given, judgment and decree passed or order made by it, review the same to correct any mistake or error apparent on the face of record or for any other sufficient ground and shall record reasons thereof."
6. It is important to be mentioned here that review jurisdiction provided in the FCR neither provided an open ended remedy to an aggrieved person to re-agitate his entire case nor had the same furnished the Tribunal with a jurisdiction of re-opening the entire controversy or sit in appeal against its original judgment. Legislature has employed the wordings "to correct any mistake or error apparent on the face of record or for any other sufficient ground" with a particular aim in mind and that was to restrict the review jurisdiction and not to leave it open ended. A review may therefore be made; a) to correct any mistake or error apparent on the face of record; b) for any other sufficient ground.
Any other sufficient ground is not an independent clause and shall be read as ejusdem generis with clause (a) reproduced above.
7. Applicability of rule of ejusdem generis was explained in Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes Twelfth Edition by P . St. J. Langan , in the following words; "But the general word which follows particular and specific words of the same nature as itself takes its meaning from them and is presumed to be restricted to the same genus as those words. For "according to a well established rule in the construction of statutes, general terms following particular ones apply only to such persons or things as are ejusdem generis with those comprehended in the language of the Legislature." In other words, the general expression is to be read as comprehending only things of the same kind as that designated by the preceding particular expressions, unles s there is something to show that a wider sense was intended, as where there is a provision specifically excepting certain classes clearly not within the suggested genus."
8. In the case of Borwnsea Haven Properties, Ltd, v. Poole Corporation ([1958] Ch. 574), where section 21 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 provided; "The commissioners may from time to time make orders for the route to be observed by all carts, carriage, horses, and persons, and for preventing obstruction of the streets ... in all times of public processions, rejoicings, or illuminations, and in any case where the streets are thronged or liable to be obstructed " The Court of Appeal in UK, held that it did not enable the corporation to make an order for a one- way traffic system in two streets for a period of six months. it was held that the words "in any case", etc should be confined to special events, i.e. occasions strictly similar to public processions, rejoicings or illuminations, but such powers may not be used in normal cases for regulations of the general traffic in the manner provided in the order ."
In our jurisdiction, the Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment given in the case of Punjab Cooperative Board of Liquidation through Chairman vs Muhammad Ilayas reported as PLD 2014 Supreme Court 471, has held as follows; "Now comes the crucial part of the section "and make such orders as he may think just in the circumstances of the case". The word "and" appearing in the section is of quite an importance which is conjunctive in nature, rather than being disjunctive, and thus the portion of the section quoted has to be read in the syntax of the earlier part thereto and, in this context, for all inten ts and purposes the later part of the section shall be considered as ejusdem generis to the earlier portion; which (ejusdem generis principle) is a canon of statutory interpretation, holding that when general word or phrase follows (a list of) specifics, the general word or phrase shall be interpreted to include only the words/items of the same class as those specified. This princip le (ejusdem generis), in view of the unambiguous language of the section, shall unmistakably be duly attracted to that portion on which reliance has been placed by the appellant. In any case, the second part of the section (quoted above), which is undoubtedly general in nature, does not confer upon the Cooperatives Judge an open ended power and jurisdiction to pass just any order , as this may even fall within the realm and the mischief of arbitrari ness, whim and caprice in the exercise of his jurisdiction, which never was nor could be the intention of the legislature. Furthermore, undoubtedly it shall be impermissible for the learned Cooperatives Judge to do so in the garb of the power of confirming, reversing or modifying the act/decision of the Cooperative Board. Thus, in our view the learned Cooperatives Judge while exercising his jurisdiction under section 11 ibid shall have no empowerment to totally annihilate and set aside that part of the order , itself passed by the Liquidation Board, by virtue of which an 'aggrieved person' before the Cooperatives Judge has earned a right in his favour ."
Similarly in the case of Province of West Pakistan Through the Vice-Chairman, Pakistan Western Railway , Lahore vs Syed Moharram Ali And 93 others reported as 1970 PLC 408, the Hon'ble Apex Court had also invoked the principle of ejusdem generis , in-aid of interpretation by observing; "The learned Judges in the High Court did not accept this contention and we agree with their reason that the phrase "any matter relating theret o" in this definition is to be read "ejusdem generis" with the word "Industrial dispute" to cover only controversies with regard to the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or the condition s of work of any person under subsection (5) of section 12 of the Ordinance."
Further reference in this respect may also be made to the judgments reported as 2020 SCMR 333, 2002 SCMR 250, PLD 2000 Supreme Court 111, PLD 1989 Supreme Court 128 and 1998 PLC (CS.) 1484 . The words "any other sufficient ground" used in Section 55-AA of FCR would be read as employing any other sufficient ground akin and similar to the wordings, "to correct any mistake or error apparent on the face of record."
9. Grounds for review provided in section 55-AA of FCR is pari mateira with Orde r XXVI, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules. Regarding scope of review under the Supreme Court Rules, as well as Article 188 of the Constitution, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has repeatedly been observing that such an exercise may not be taken as rehearing of a case. In the case of Majid Mahmood vs Muhammad Shafi reported as 2008 SCMR 554, the Hon'ble Court has observed, in this respect, as follows; "The exercise of review jurisdiction does not mean a rehearing of the matter and as finality attaches to the order , a decision, even though it is erroneous per se, would not be a ground to justify its review .
Accordingly , in keeping with the limits of the review jurisdiction, it is futile to reconsider the submissions, which converge on the merits of the decision. It needs no reiteration that before an error can be a ground for review , it is necessary that it must be one which is apparent on the face of the record, that is, it must be so manifest, so clear that no Court could permit such an error to remain on the record. It may be an error of fact or of law, but it must be an error which is self evident and floating on the surface and does not require any elaborate discussion or process of ratiocination. It is not denied that if the Court has taken a conscious and deliberate decision on a point of law or fact while disposing of a petition or an appeal, review of such judgment or order cannot be obtained on the grounds that the Court took an erroneous view or that another view on reconsideration is possible.
Further reference in this respect may also be made to judgment in the case of Wafi Associates (Pvt.) Limited Vs Farooq Hamid and others reported as 2010 SCMR 1125, the case of Syed Ashfaq Hussain Shah vs N.E.D.
University of Engineering And Technology , Karachi and others reported as 2007 SCMR 73, the case of Messrs Pakistan Tourism Development Corporation Ltd, and another vs Colle ctor, Customs Central Excise And Sales Tax, Lahore and others reported as 2005 SCMR 54, the case of Naseer Ahmed vs The State reported as 2006 SCMR 942, the case of Muhammad Hussain vs Mukhtar Ahmad reported as 2006 SCMR 71 and the case of Federation of Pakistan through Secretary , Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad vs Muhammad T ariq Pirzada and others reported as 1999 SCMR 1289.
10. The petitioners have not been able to show any mistake or error apparent on face of record nor could establish their right of review of the judgment on any other sufficient ground. Tribunal in its original judgment dated 29.05.2017 has found that the matter had been referred to a council of elders according to provisions of FCR, with mutual consent of the parties which had accordingly given its recommendation, whereupon an order had been passed by the APA and thus the provisions of Section 8 of FCR had been comp lied with. The Tribunal had also noted that petitioners had never raised any objection on any member of the council of elders and that it had find no illegality or irregularity in the proceedings of the Courts below , leading to miscarriage of justice.
11. Learned counsel for petitioners has though argued the case at length and had tried to reopen the entire controversy but could not point out, any mistake or error apparent on face of record nor could show any other sufficient ground for review of said judgment. This Court is not supposed to substitute its findings for the recommendation of Jirga or decision of the APA thereupon while hearing review in the case in hand. Interpr etation of custom and Riwaj was domain of counc il of elders in the erstwhile regime of FCR and it had its own peculiar way of judging things which cannot be re-judged in the instant proceedings. No illegality or irregularity could be found.
No ground existed for review of judgment dated 29.05.2017 of the Tribunal.
12. The petition in hand was therefore found to be meritless and same is accordingly dismissed.