AHMAD ALI, J. This revision petition has been directed against the judgment and order dated 29.09.2019 passed by Additional District Judge-III, Abbottabad, whereby , the review petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
2. Precisely the facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a suit for declara tion, permanent and mandatory injunctions against the respondents to the effect that they being employees of respondent-PESCO under Electronic Data Processing Service Rules, 1982 are entitled to the grant of special allowance of Rs.10,000/- on the basis of letter dated 21.03.2009 issued by the respondents. The said suit was contested by the respondent-Company . After recording evidence, the suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.06.2018 and appeal thereagainst filed by the petitioners was also dismissed vide judgment dated 20.03.2019. The petitioners feeling aggrieved of the judgment and order dated 20.03.2019 of learned Additional District Judge-III, Abbottabad filed review petition before Appellate Court, which was also dismiss ed vide impugned order dated 28.09.2019, hence, this revision petition.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. Admittedly , no revision petition has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court, whereby , the appeal of the present petitioners was dismissed. The present revision petition has been filed to call in question order of learned Appellate Court dated 20.09.2019 passed in review petition filed by the petitioners against the judgment dated 20.03.2019 on two grounds, firstly , that the admission of the respondent was not recorded in the judgment under review and secondly , that several documents produced by the petitioners justifying claim of the petitioners were not considered. Perusal of record would reveal that the learned Appellate Court has discussed the above mentioned two questions raised by the present petitioners in their review petition in the impugned judgment.
5. This Court in the case of "Chief Secretary Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and 5 others" (2017 YLR 229) had already held that the case, already decided after proper appraisal of the facts & law, cannot be re-opened and the first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order , review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the reviewing Court does not sit in appeal over its own order . A re-hearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. In a nutshell, the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. The same view was also rendered by this Court in another case titled "Mst. Parveen Bibi Vs. Zulqarnain and 2 others" (2018 CLC Note 1 1).
6. Although the learned counsel for petitioner argued the case very competently and referred a number of authoritative judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court; however , as stated above being a Review Petition, its scope is very limited and review is not an alternate of an appeal. The guidance derived from the case titled, "Mst.
Mukhtar Mai VS. Abdul Khali(' and others" ( 2019 SCMR 1302 ) wherein august Apex Court held: it is now well settled that the power of review stems from the possibility of judicial fallibility and is exercised in exceptional circumstances, in aid of justice, to avoid gross injustice and in view of the necessity to avoid perpetuating such illegality , which cannot be allowed to remain on the record. A review is not synonymous with an appeal and does not include rehearing of the matter in issue nor will be warranted merely because the conclusion drawn is wrong or erroneous but is limited to eventualities where something obvious has been overlooked or where there is a glaring omission or patent mistake of fact or law, which is self-evident, manifest and floating on the surface, materially affecting the outcome of the adjudicatory process. Reliance in this behalf may be made to the case reported as Zakaria Ghani and 4 others v . Muhammad Ikhlaq Memon and 8 others [ PLD 2016 SC 229 ]."
7. In this regard, I am also fortified by the dictum laid down by the august Supreme Court in the case titled "Syed Rizwan Ahmed and 3 others Vs. Secretary , Cadd, Islamabad and others" (2018 SCMR 997)/(2018 PLC (C.S.)
1209 ) which provides: "A review cannot be granted for merely re-examination of the same argument on merits or any additional ground which is beyond the scope of review jurisdiction as determined by this Court in a large number of cases including Muhammad Ashiq v. Water and Power Development Authority (2009 SCMR 749). We have not found any such ground being available to the petitioners."
8. Further reliance is also placed on the case reported as "Daewoo Corporation vs. Zila Council, Jhang and 2 others" ( 2004 SCMR 1213 ), which is as under: "3. It is well-settled by now that "a review petition is not competent where neither any new and important matter or evidence has been discovered nor any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Such error may be an error of fact or of law but it must be self-evident and floating on surface and not requiring any elaborate discussion or process of ratiocination ". Master Tahilram v. Lilaram 1970 SCMR 622, Abdul Khaliq Qureshi v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commis sioner 1968 SCMR 800, Rehmatullah v. Abdul Majid 1968 SCMR 838, Hassan Din v. Claims Commissioner , Lahore 1968 SCMR 1047(2), Qamar Din v. Maula Bakhsh 1968 SCMR 1042(1), Muhammad Akram v. State 1970 SCMR 418 and Nawab Bibi v. Hamida Begum 1968 SCMR 104.
There is no cavil with the proposition that "if judgment or finding, although suffering from an erroneous assumption of facts, is sustainable on other grounds available on record, review is not justifiable notwithstanding error being apparent on the face of the record". Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v . State 1979 SCMR 427 . "
9. In another case reported as "Messrs Pakistan International Airlines Karachi Vs. Inavat Rasool" (2004 SCMR 1737 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held that if all the grounds raised by the petitioner in support of review petition having already been discussed and decided on merits the cannot be allowed to be re-agitated and same is the position in this case. The relevant portion of above said judgment is reproduced as under: "The scope of the review is limited and always confined to the essential aspects of the case referred to at review stage which were not considered in the judgment but if the grounds taken in suppor t of the petition were considered in the judgment and decided on merits, the same would not be available for review in the form of re-examination of the case on merits. The grounds urged by the learned counsel in support of this review petition, have already been discussed and decided on merits, therefore, the same would not be allowed to be re-agitated."
10. Reliance is also placed on the case reported as "Mirza Tahir Hussain vs. The State and another" (2005 SCMR 330 ), wherein the august Apex Court is of the view: "The scope of review is limited and it does not allow re-hearing, re-appraisal or appreciation of evidence afresh."
11. It is now well settled that if a dispute is resolved illegally in a judgment, even then, the said Judgment cannot be reviewed and guidance in this regard derived from the case reported as "Majid Mahmood vs. Muhammad Shad'
(2008 SCMR 554) and reliance is placed on the case titled "Mst. Parveen Bibi Vs. Zuloarnain and 2 others"
(2018 CLC Note 1 1) decided at D.I.Khan Bench of this Court.
12. It is also settled proposition of law that the review is not meant for re-hearing of the matter . No illegality or irregularity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the impugned judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, dismissed the review petition filed by the petitioners. Thus, this Court considers that this revision petition being bereft of merits is dismissed in limine.