RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, C.J.--- In the matter pertaining to the execution of the decrees in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir passed by the Courts of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, this Court through the judgment under review passed on 10.01.2019, held that:- "The appreciation of this statutory provision clearly speaks that for execution of such decree reciprocal arrangements between the Governments of Pakistan and Azad Jammu and Kashmir are required and, in this context, the basic requirement is the 'declaration through a notification to be published in the official gazette by both the Governments according to the spirit of Explanation 2 of section 44A, C.P .C. "
The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid judgment after lapse of 693 days, whereas, the limitation for filing review petition has been prescribed as 30 days.
2. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to explain that how the Government is aggrieved of the impugned judgment; he stated that after thirteenth amendment the situation has changed, therefore, the findings recorded in the impugned judgment that reciprocal arrange ments between the Government of Pakistan and Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir are required for execution of decree are liable to he reviewed. Regarding the point of limitatio n, he stated that the petitioner was not party in the case in which the impugned judgment was passed. The same recently came into the knowledge of the petitioner , hence, from the date of knowledge, the review petition is well within time.
3. Mr. Fayyaz Ahmed Janjua, Advocate, stated that the review petition is hopelessly time barred. The petitioner A is not an aggrieved person, hence, this review petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. It may be stated here that the review petition can only be filed by an aggrieved person. An aggrieved person is one whose rights are threatened or being denied or whose rights have been affected by a decision. This Court in the case reported as Azad Government and others v. Barrister Adana Nawaz Khan and others [2020 SCR 591] has elaborated the 'aggrieved person' in relation to filing of review , in the following manner:- "4. Here we would like to observe that a review by its very nature is not an appeal or a rehearing merely on the ground that either party conceives himsel f to be dissatisfied with the conclusion reached at by the Court. Under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978, this Court may review its judgment in a civil proceeding on the grounds similar to those mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of C.P.C. and in a criminal proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of record. To understand the nature of grounds in civil proceedings which may warrant review of a judgment or Order , Rule 1 of Order XLVII, C.P.C. has to be kept in view which is reproduced hereunder:-- "1. Application for review of judgment.--- (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved;--
(a) by a decree or orders from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred;
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeals allowed; or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order ."
From the bare reading of the statutory provision reproduced hereinabove, it becomes clear that only an aggrieved person can seek review of the judgment. The term 'aggrieved person' has been defined by the superior Courts in a plethora of judgments wherein it has been held that an aggrieved person is one whose rights are threatened or being denied or whose rights have been affected by a decision. Moreover , an aggrieved must be a person who has suffered a legal grievance or who must be a person against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongly deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something or wrongfully affected his title to something. Reference may be made to a case reported as Ch. Muhammad Yasin v. Sardar Muhammad Naeem Khan and 3. others [2010 SCR 17] wherein the term 'aggrieved person' has been elaborated in the following manners:-- "An aggrieved party is one whose rights are threatened or whose rights are being denied or whose rights have been affected by a decision. The word "rights" is not used in strict juristic sense. It is sufficient if the person alleging to be an aggrieved has a personal interest in the performance of a legal duty which if not performed would result in the loss of some personal advantage. A party who stands to lose or gain an advantage by observance or nonobservance of law is an aggrieved party . A person aggrieved must be a person who has suffered a legal grievance or he must be a person against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongly deprived him of something, or wrongfully refused him something or wrongfully affected his title to something."
The learned counsel for the petitioner has miserably failed to satisfy us that how the Government of Pakistan is aggrieved of the impugned judgment. The only argument that after thirteenth amendment the Government of Pakistan has become aggrieved; is not convincing in nature. The learned counsel for the petitioner stressed that it is the legal point which requires resolution by the Court. In the instant case the petitioner was under obligation to satisfy us that there is any error or mistake apparent on the face of record from which the petitioner has become aggrieved, whereas, no such eventuality exists. The point raised shall be dealt with in an appropriate case.
Furthermore, this review petition has been filed after lapse of 693 days without any suf ficient explanation.
Resultantly , this review petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 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.