IQBAL AHMED KASI, J. The instant Review Petition, filed under Section 114 read with Order XLVII, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., carries the following prayer clause: "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to review its judgment dated 30.12.2022, passed in C.P. No. 1942 of 2022 and set aside the press release dated 24.11.2022, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play."
2. The operative part of the impugned judgment, dated 30.12.2022, passed in Constitutional Petition No. 1942 of 2022 read as under: "5. Apart from above facts, the aforesaid allegations and counter-allegations, it can easily be ascertained that the case in hand is one, which is based on factual controversies and, thus, this Court lacks the jurisdiction to decide such like controversies in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction and if the petitioner has any grievances against the respondents, the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner is to file a civil suit before the competent Court of law, if he desires so.
Thus, in view of the above, the petition, being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed."
3. Undoubtedly, the Courts are vested the powers to review the orders, judgments, and decrees with certain restrictions, limitations, conditions, being provided in Section 114, and Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.). The Court while reviewing judgment, order cannot sit as a Court of appeal as the grounds for appeal and review are totally different from each other.
Whenever, there is a clerical, arithmetical, accidental, typographical and a pencil slip mistake which is floating on the surface of record or, which apparently is against the law coverable under Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C., could be reviewed. The provisions of Section 114 and Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C, for convenience are reproduced as under: "S.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; or
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code,- 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."
"Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C.
1. Application for review of judgment.-(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved--
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is 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."
4. The most important 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 review, Court does not sit in appeal over its own order.
Similarly re-hearing of the matter is impermissible in law. Likewise, it constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. The power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view.
5. At this juncture, a question arises, as to whether the case of petitioner/applicant fits within the four corners of review jurisdiction of this Court? Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned judgment. It is the only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned press release dated 24.11.2022, was passed against the petitioner, whereby, the candidature of the petitioner was cancelled and was permanently disqualified from applying for any post advertised by Balochistan Public Service Commission but while deciding the instant constitution petition, neither the punishment imposed by the BPSC was discussed nor this Hon'ble court has given any finding to the extent of penalty imposed upon the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that in the judgment under review, it was specifically observed by this Court that there appear allegations and counter-allegations in the main petition, which were based on factual controversies and this Court was lacking jurisdiction to decide such like controversies in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, however, the petitioner was given an opportunity to agitate his grievances before the competent Court of law and the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner was to file a civil suit, but the petitioner instead of tiling a civil suit, filed the instant review petition, whereas, it has already been settled by the Hon'ble august Courts of the Country that this Court (High Court) could not engage in factual controversies, as the matters pertaining to factual controversies can only be resolved after thorough inquiry and recording of evidence in a civil Court.
For the reasons stated above, the petitioner has not been able to point any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional defect, thus, the petition is hereby dismissed in limini, being without substance.