ALI BAIG, J.---This is an application filed by the petitio ner under section 114 read with Order XLVII, C.P.C. seeking recall/review of judgment dated 01.08.2019 passed by this Court in Revision Petition No. 120 of 2017, whereby , this Court had dismissed the civil revision petition of the petitioner .
2. Brief facts as leading to the instant review petition are that the present petition er/plaintif f (hereinafter called as petitioner) had filed a suit for declaration against the present respondents/de fendants (hereinafter called as respondents) in the trial court claiming therein that his date of respondents have reflected his date of birth as 25- 02-1988 in CNIC which is incorrect and is required to be corrected his date of birth as 12-02-1995.
3. The present respondents resisted the suit by way of filing written statement in the trial court raising certain legal objections and repudiating the claim of the petitioner .
4. From the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed as many as eight issues and started trial.
5. On conclusion of trial, the learned Trial Court after hearing final arguments on behalf of both the parties has dismissed the suit of the petitioner vide judgment/decree dated 10-07-2017.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the afore-mentioned judgment of the learned trial court, the petitioner had filed Civil First Appeal in the court of learned Additional District Judge Gilgit which was also dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment/order dated 22.09.2017 and the judgment/order of the learned First Appellate Court was challenged in this Court through Civil Revision Petition, bearing Civil Rev. No.120/2017. The said revision petition has also been dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 01-Q8-2019, hence this review petition.
7. Arguments heard and record also perused.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken/ agitated the following grounds for review/recall of the impugned judgment of this Court:--
1. That the petitioner filed a Revision Petition No. 120/2017 before this Hon'ble Court which has been dismissed on 01.08.2019.
2. That the Hon'ble Judge Chief Court apparently 3 times adjourned the case, which was fixed for order , after 3 adjournments the Hon'ble Judge Chief Court has forgotten the contents of the case which the learned Judge given his justure during the arguments of above stated case.
3. It is submitted with utmost respect that the Hon'ble Court has not considered the case of petitioner while disposing of the Revision Petition No. 120/017, hence the said order needs to be reviewed.
4. That the impugned judgment/ decree is contrary to law and facts available on the record of the case file.
Hence same is not maintainable and liable to be reviewed.
5. That the observations of this Hon'ble Court are based on wrong conception regarding the nature, the other observation regarding the judgment of this Hon'ble Court is also based on misconception, misreading or non-reading of the contents of the revision petition. Hence, impugned judgment/ decree is liable to be reviewed.
6. That important legal issue regarding age and relevant documents has not been discussed nor have any findings on legal issue has been given. Hence, this important point of law has been inadvertently overlooked from being considered which needs review of judgment.
7. That floating error is apparent which was the result of misreading, non-reading or overlooking of material facts available on the record of the case file. Hence same judgment is liable to be reviewed.
8. That the impugned judgment/ decree is totally against the basic principle of law, justice and equity .
Hence the same is liable to be reviewed.
9. From bare perusal of the afore-reproduced grounds, it appears that the petitioner has agitated the same grounds which were taken/agitated in his revision petition filed in this Court which are not permissible to re-agitate in the review petition.
10. It may be observed that the scope of review is very limited. It cannot be used as a substitute of regular appeal which is competent on a question of facts and law. The mere fact that a court has taken an erroneous view on the question of fact or on the question of law would not attract the review jurisdictio n which grounds are eminently amenable in an appeal or revision. Reference in this regard is made to the reported judgment 2013 MLD 1 132.
11. It is settled principle of law that main aim of review is correction of errors not involving process of reasoning or appreciation of law and facts and not correcting wrong decision while exercising power of review . Court cannot hear the matter as an appeal against its own judgment. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the reported judgment 2003 CLC 1773 .
12. For the foregoing reasons, no ground exists to review the judgment of this Court dated 01-08-2019. Resultantly , the instant review petition being misconceived and bereft of merit is hereby dismissed. File.