ALI BAIG, J.---This is a review petition filed by the petitioner with a prayer to review the judgment dated 21-6-2019 passed in civil revision petition No.05/2019 by this court.
2. Briefly stated facts giving rise to the filing of this review petition are that the present petitioner/plaintif f had instituted suit for recovery of Rs.500,000,000/- (fifty crore) on account of defamation against the present respondent/ defendant in the court of learned District, Judge Gilgit on 29.4.2016. Later on the present petitioner/plaintif f withdrew his suit on 10.5.2016, from the trial court stating that the parties have settled the matter as plaintif f/ petitioner has forgiven to the respondent/defendant. Accordingly , the suit of the plaintif f/petitioner was disposed of as withdrawn by the learned trial court/District Judge, Gilgit.
3. After withdrawal of suit, the present petitioner/ plaintif f filed an application under section 12(2) C.P.C. in the trial court stating therein that on 10.5.2016, the then District Judge, Gilgit (Mr. Muhammad Umar) without taking consent of the present petitioner/plaintif f and without recording statement of the present petitioner/plaintif f has passed the order on 10.5.2016, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. The learned trial court after hearing arguments on the maintainability of the aforesaid application on behalf of both the parties had dismissed the aforesaid application of the petitioner/plaintif f vide order dated 10.10.2018. The present petitioner/plaint iff had challenged the aforesaid order of the learned trial court in this court through civil revision petition which was also dismissed by this court on merits vide the impugned judgment dated 21.6.2019 by this court. The present plaintif f/ petitioner has filed the instant review petition in this court against the aforesaid judgment of this court.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintif f/ petitioner contended that the then learned District Judge (Mr. Muhammad Umar) had disposed of the suit of the plaintif f/ petitioner without recording statement of the plaintif f/petitioner , as such the learned trial court had committed gross illegality and irregularity while passing the order dated 10-10-2018, and this court has failed to consider this fact while deciding revision petition of the plaintif f/petitioner , therefore, the impugned judgment passed by this court dated 21.6.2019' is liable to be reviewed.
5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant vehemently opposed this review petition by contending that review has limited scope and it may be exercised in the event of discovery of new matter of evidence or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The learned counsel-for the respondent/defendant further argued that this review petition is barred by time of seven days and the plaintif f/ petitioner has failed to mention sufficient cause/ground for condonation of delay in filing of this review petition, hence this review petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment under review passed by this court.
7. It is well-settled principle of law that review has a very limited scope. It may be exercised in the event of discovery of new matter of evidence, which after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the petitioner/plaintif f or could not be produced by him at the time when the impugned order was made. It may also be exercised on account of some mistake or error on the face of record/judgment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has consistently held that review proceedings cannot partake rehearing of a decided case and a party cannot be permitted to convert a review petition into an appeal. As the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintif f agitated the same grounds which were agitated at the time of arguments on the revision petition of the petitioner/plaintif f and has not been able to demonstrate existence of any of the ground or error in the impugned judgment of this court, that may necessitate review of the original judgment of this court dated 21.6.2019.
8. Moreover , this review petition is barred by time. Although, the petitioner has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, but the petitioner has not given sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing this review petition. Perusal of contents of application filed under section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing this review petition it appears that allegedly , the petitioner is cancer patient and he remained under treatment at NORI Hospital Islamabad. Perusal of Medical Certificate/ prescription slip reflects that the petitioner has attended/appeared before NORI Hospital Islamabad on 24-6-2019 and 23-8-2019 as outdoor patient. Moreover , it is not mentioned in the Medical Certificate/prescription slip that the petitioner has remained as indoor patient in the aforesaid Hospital and was bed ridden and during that period was unable to contact his counsel. It is also a settled law that aggrieved person has to pursue his legal remedies with diligence and if a petition or suit etc. is filed beyond limita tion day to day delay has to be explained, but in the instant case, the petitioner has failed to do so.
9. For what has been discussed above, I do not find any merit in this review petition. It is accordingly , dismissed.
File.