' AJMAL MIAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 21-3-1991 passed by a Full Bench of the High Court of Sindh upon review petition filed by the petitioner, seeking review of the judgment dated 18-10-1990 passed by the aforesaid Full Bench of the High Court reported in January Issue of P.L.D. 1991, holding that the President's Order dated 6-8-1990 dissolving the National Assembly of Pakistan and dismissing the Federal Cabinet, was legal. The review was sought on two grounds, firstly, that since the petitioner had filed the Constitution petition first in time, the above judgment of the Full Bench should have mentioned his name Munnawar Naimat, as the heading of the judgment instead of Mr. Khalid Malik, another petitioner in another petition, and secondly, that since the question, whether 8th Amendment of the Constitution was legal or not, was as issue before this Court in the case of Abdul Majeeb Pirzada v. Federation of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the High Court's Full Bench should not have passed the judgment. It was prayed that the above judgment of the Full Bench be set aside. The High Court declined the above review petition. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the above petition for leave to appeal.
2. Mr. Niamat Moulvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has not pressed the above first submission but urged the above second.Contention and in support whereof, he has referred to the case of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. The State PLD 1979 SC 741, in which the following observations were made:-- "However, an order based on an erroneous assumption of material fact, or without adverting to a provision of law, or a departure from an undisputed construction of the law and the Constitution may amount to an error apparent on the face of the record. At the same time if the judgment under review, or a finding contained therein, although suffering from an erroneous assumption of facts, is sustainable on other grounds available on the record then although the error may be apparent on the face of the record, it would not justify a review of the judgment or the finding in question. In other words, the error must not only be apparent, but must also have a material bearing on the fate of the case. Errors of inconsequential import do not call for review."
3. The above case has no application as the factum that the question of validity of 8th Amendment was an issue before this Court, was very much in the knowledge of the petitioner as well as of the COurt passing the impugned judgment. No ground admissible under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. Was made out for review of the above judgment. The review petition was rightly dismissed by the High Court. Leave is, accordingly, refused.