Through this review application, applicant Fayyaz Ahmed seeks review of the judgment dated 9.4.2019 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.68-D of 2014 whereby while dismissing the revision petition the judgments and decrees of learned lower courts regarding dismissal of the suit were upheld.
2. The facts in bravity are that applicant instituted a suit on 31.1.2009 and sought declaration regarding legal entitlement from the legacy of his grandfather , namely . Muhammad Ismail and challenged the validity of gift mutation (Intiqal Tamleeq ) No.662 dated 26.2.1986 whereby , Muhammad Ismail transferred suit property in the name of his sons (respondents Nos.1 and 2) and also challenged some other mutations which were sanctioned on the basis of above said mutation. After service respondents submitted contesting written statement by raising so many legal as well as factual objections, specially question of limitation. Learned trial court keeping in view the divergent pleadings of the parties framed issues out of which Issue No.4 was relating to question or limitation. After recording evidence the trial court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 20.6.201 1 and based, its judgment upon the findings given upon Issues Nos.1 and 2 and while dealing with Issue No.4 disposes it of subservient of the findings of Issues Nos.1 and 2. Feeling aggrieved the applicant preferred appeal which met with the same fate vide judgment and decree dated 8.10.2013. However , while deciding appeal learned appellate court gave its specific finding upon Issue No.4 by treating it a legal issue and after declaring the suit hopelessly time barred rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. and on this score modified the impugned judgment and decree.
3. Being dis-satisfied the applicant then filed civil revision before this Court which was dismissed on 9.4.2019, hence, this review , application.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that this Court while deciding the civil revision failed to take notice or the grounds "B", "D" and "E" of the revision petition which were very important bearing upon merits of the case; that those grounds have neither been consid ered nor discussed while deciding the civil revision; that while deciding Issue No.4 regarding limitation this Court also overlooked the aspect that at the time of sanctioning the impugned mutation the applicant was only 10 years old and by relying on Fida Hussain v. The Secretary , Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs Division, Islamabad and another (PLD 1995 SC 701), Muhammad Akhtar Shirani and others v. Punjab Text Book Board and others (2004 SCMR 1077 ), Engineers Study Forum (Registered) and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2016 SCMR 1961 ) and Basharat Ali Khan v. Muhammad Akbar ( 2017 SCMR 309 ) prayed for review of the judgment of this Court.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant at considerable length and gone through the judgment and record.
6. The scope of review under section 114 and Order XLVII, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is very limited and review could only be allowed when some new and important matter or evidence has been discovered which after exercise of due diligence was not within knowledge and an order could be reviewed only in view of some mistake or errer apparent on the face of record.
The main aim of the power of review is to prevent injustice being done by a Court and is subject to the limitation provided in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-rule (1) of Order XLVII, C.P.C. For the purpose of appreciation both provisions are being reproduced as under:- Section 1 14--Review (1) Subject as aforesaid any person considering himself aggrieved--
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred.
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or
(c) by a decision on n reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order , and the Court may make such order thereon-as it thinks fit.
(2) Nothing contained in subsection (1) shall apply to a review of any judgment pronounced or order made by the Supreme Court." Order XL VII, Rule 1--Review--Application for review of judgment.
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-,
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, 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, otter 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 .
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review ."
7. From the combined analysis of the above referred provisions, it becomes crystal clear that one of the most essential requirements for invoking review , jurisdiction of a Court is that important evidence having a material bearing upon the merits of, the case and decision thereof was subsequently discovered, which was neither in the possession nor in the knowledge of the aggrieved party before passing of the judgment/order sought to be reviewed and further that the important evidence referred to was in existence when the judgment/order was made.
The power of review can only be exercised when an error or mistake is manifestly shown to float on the surface of record, which is so patent that if it is allowed to remain intact, would perpetuate illegality and gross injustice.
8. Viewed in the background of the aforesaid principles, governing the filing of a review application, when we consider the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and the points urged in the review application, it appears that all the points were already raised and discussed in the under review decision of this Court. Each point raised was exhaustively considered, analyzed and dealt with by this Court while deciding the revision petition. Categorical findings recorded after careful and conscious appreciation of all pros and cons of the matter cannot be re-opened with a view to re-appraising the same and for taking a contrary view, which otherwise did not suffer from misconstruction or misappreciation of the law applicable to the facts of the case. Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a routine matter or to re-hear a case which has already been decided.
9. It is a settled proposition of law that the points already raised and considered cannot be re-agitated in review jurisdiction. Reliance is placed upon Sh. Mehdi Hassan v. Province of Punjab through Member , Board of Revenue and 5 others ( 2007 SCMR 755 ). In para-8 of the judgment it has been observed as under:- "8. We having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with their assistance have found that the contentions raised by the learned counsel in support of this petition have been exhaustively dealt with in the judgment under review . This is settled law that the points already raised and considered before the Court, cannot be re-agitated in review jurisdiction which is confined to the extent of potent error or a mistake floating on the face of record which if not corrected may perpetuate illegality and injustice. The mere fact that another view of the matter was possible or the conclusion drawn in the judgment was wrong, would not be a valid ground to review the judgment unless it is shown that the Court has failed to consid er an important question of law.
The learned counsel has not been able to point out any such error of law in the judgment or interference in the review jurisdiction."
10. The scope of review very limited. The judgment can be reviewed only when the error is apparent on the face of the record and that it must be so manifest, so clear , that no Court could permit such an error to remain on record.
Reliance is placed on Mahmood Hussain Lark and others v. Muslim Commercial Bank Limited and others (2010 SCMR 1036 ) wherein it has been observed as under:- "We have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by the petitioners in person, gone through the judgment sought to be reviewed we are of the view that before an error can be a ground of review , it is necessary , that it must be one which is apparent on the face of the record and that it must be so manifest, so clear , that no Court could permit such an error to rema in on record. Incorrectness of a conclusion arrived at after a conscious perusal of record and in depth examination of evidence cannot be made a ground for review because to permit a review on the ground of incorrectness would amount to granting the Court jurisdiction of re-hearing appeals against its own judgment."
In the case of Syed Wajihul Hassan Zaidi v. Government of the Punjab and others (PLD 2004 SC 801), it was held:-- "Every judgment pronounced by Supreme Court is presumed to be final, solemn and well considered covering all points arising out of the case. If the Court has taken a conscious and deliberate decision on a point of fact or law, a review petition will not be competent. The circumstance that the view canvassed in the review petition is more reasonable than the view already accepte d by the Court in the impugned order of which review is sought would not be sufficient to maintain a review petition. Likewise, factum that a material irregularity was committed by the Court would not be adequate enough to warrant a review of the judgment unless the material irregularity be of a nature so as to convert the process of acting in aid of justice to a process of gross injustice. In such eventuality a review petition would be competent. Similarly fact that the conclusion drawn in a judgment is wrong would not warrant review of the same but if the conclusion is wrong because something manifest has been ignored by the Court or the Court has not considered an important aspect of the matter , a review petition would lie. Furthermore, principle of law is well recognized that Supreme Court would not exercise the power of review as a routine matter to rehear a case already decided but the same can be pressed into service where a glaring omission on the face of record or patent error has crept the judgment by judicial fallibility"
11. This Court passed the judgment under review while exercising its revisional jurisdiction and. the Court can interfere only where the subordinate courts exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it, or failed to E exercise a jurisdiction vested in it, or acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with a material irregularity . Learned lower appellate court after appreciating the evidence available on the record concluded that the suit of the applicant had been barred by limitation and rejected the plaint. This Court also after scanning the evidence of the parties and record found itself in agreement with the finding of learned lower appellate court and reached upon the same conclusion. There was no need to discuss the other issues, where in the opinion of the court, the suit was hit by limitation and liable to be rejected on this score because further discussion is merely a futile exercise. It always lay down that review proceedings cannot partake rehearing or a decided case. The argument of learned counsel that learned lower courts failed to take notice that at the time of attestation of the mutat ion the applicant was only at the age of ten years, seems to be afterthought, as this point was neither agitated before the lower courts nor mentioned in the plaint. This Court in exercise of its review jurisdiction cannot sit as a court of appeal G against its own order . We thus find no ground tenable in law to take a divergent view. Consequently , this review application is dismissed being misconceived.