AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J. Through this application under section 114 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C., the review-applicants/respondents seek review of the order dated 17.12.2019, passed by this Court in the instant petition, whereby the instant petition was allowed by setting aside the order dated 31.05.2011 passed by the Revisional Court of IIIrd Additional District Court Sukkur while maintaining the order dated 05.01.2011 passed by the learned 1st Senior Civil Judge Sukkur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed counter affidavit to this application against which affidavit in rejoinder has been filed by the review-applicants/respondents.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review-applicants / respondents while reiterating the grounds mentioned in the review application has also argued the matter as a whole and submitted that the order under review suffers from certain errors of law which are apparent on the face of the record and prays that this application may be allowed.
3. On the other side, learned counsel for the petitioners objected to this application and submitted that order dated 17-12-2019 of which review has been sought, was passed after hearing both the parties and same is in accordance with law. He argued that provisions of section 114 and XLVII, C.P.C. do not attract to the order dated 17.12.2019.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record carefully.
5. It may not be out of place to mention here that power of review is provided under section 114 and Order XLVII, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Under section 114, C.P.C. a review application is maintainable for enabling the Court to correct the errors. 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 114--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 a 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 XLVII, 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, 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,
(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 lie applies for the review."
6. 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 or record, which is so patent that if it allowed to remain intact would perpetuate illegality and gross injustice.
7. Viewed in the background of the aforesaid principles governing the filing of a review application, when I consider the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the review- applicants/respondents and the points urged in the review application, it appears that all the points were already raised and discussed in the under review decision. Each point raised was exhaustively considered, analyzed and dealt with by court. Categorical findings recorded after careful and conscious appreciation of all pros and cons of the matter and cannot be reopened 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.
8. 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:- "g. 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 patent 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 consider 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."
9. The scope of review is 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. The review also cannot be allowed on the discovery of some new material if such material was available at the time of trial, the appeal or the revision as the case may be. The review cannot be made a pretext for re-arguing whole case and matter cannot be re-opened under the garb of review application. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case titled Ali Ahmad v. Muhammad Iqbal (2009 SCMR 394) has observed as under:- "A review by its very nature was not an appeal or rehearing merely on the ground that one party or another conceived himself to be dissatisfied with the decision of the Court"
10. In view of foregoing discussion, I am unanimous that the instant review application is highly misconceived and baseless which is hereby dismissed.