1. ' SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, J.-This Court Appeal is directed against the order, dated 3-11-1992 passed by the learned Single Judge in chamber, allowing the petition for review filed by the respondent No,1 and withdrawing the condition imposed in order dated 15-9-1991.
2. ' The facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the respondent No,1 plaintiff filed suit bearing Suit No,1228/89 for Perpetual/Mandatory Injunction and Specific Performance against the appellant and the respondent No,2. The suit is based on an agreement of sale, dated 29-8-1983 executed between the appellant and the respondent No,1. It was agreed that the appellant would sell Plot No,ST-8 measuring 10,000 sq. Yards situated in Gulshan-e-Iqbal, K.D.A. Scheme No,24.
3. Karachi for a total sale consideration of Rs,95 lac. In part performance of the agreement, the respondent No,1 paid a sum of Rs,9 lac to the appellant. It is alleged in the plaint that the appellant would approach to respondent No,2 for the allotment of the said plot in his name and the respondent No,1 would deposit with the respondent No,2 amounts payable in respect of the said plot and after deducting the payments so made to the respondent No,2, the entire balance amount shall be payable by the respondent No,1 to the appellant after six months from the date of such allotment and thereafter steps would be taken for the transfer of the said plot in the name of the respondent No,1 or his nominee. It is further alleged in the plaint, that the appellant avoided to fulfil the due performance of the said agreement in spite of repeated demands of the respondent No,1. In these circumstances the respondent No,1 filed the above suit. The appellant contended in his written statement that he approached the respondent No,2 for allotment of the said plot but it was not allotted and period of four months expired and the said agreement stood cancelled and became inoperative. It was contended that the said plot could not be allotted in personal name of the appellant.
4. ' The respondent No,1 filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. The appellant contested the application by filing counter-affidavit. The application was allowed with the condition that the respondent No,1 shall deposit Rs,31 lac with the Nazir being balance sale consideration, The respondent No,1 filed a review petition praying for withdrawal of the condition of depositing the balance sale consideration amounting to Rs,9 lac. This review petition was allowed and the condition was withdrawn. Hence the present appeal.
5. ' Mr. Shamdas vehemently urged that in first instance it be noticed that at no stage in the suit and even during the course of arguments when the impugned order was passed a prayer for grant of interim injunction without imposing any condition was made. That having not been done it is argued that it is just not possible to grant a new prayer in a review petition. Secondly, according to the learned counsel the imposition of condition is discretionary and once the same was imposed, it cannot be reviewed.
6. ' On the other hand, Mr. Shamsul Arfm submitted that the condition imposed upon the respondent No,1 for the grant of injunction would tantamount to altering the terms and conditions of the contract which is not warranted by the law as such there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
7. ' We have heard Mr. Shamdas B. Changani, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Shamsul Arfin Qureshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No,1.
8. ' We have considered carefully the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
9. We have gone through the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale and also perused the orders passed by the learned Single Judge.
10. ' It is advantageous to reproduce the relevant portion of Rule 1 of Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure which is in the following terms: "Rule 1---(1) any person considering himself aggrieved---
(b) 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."
11. ' Before examining how far this rule has application to this case, it is necessary to clear the ground by narration of the circumstances under which review was sought. The said agreement of sale is annexed to the plaint and a copy thereof is available on the record. It inter alia provided that the appellant would approach the respondent No,2 for the allotment of the said plot of land in his name; After the allotment order was issued in the name of the appellant, the respondent No,1 would deposit with the respondent No,2, all the amounts, i,e, (development charges, occupancy charges) payable in respect of the said plot and after deducting the payment so made to the respondent No,2 from the sale consideration the entire balance of the sale consideration shall be payable to the appellant after six months from the date of the allotment order whereafter steps would be taken by appellant for the transfer of the said plot in the name of the respondent No,1 or his nominee.
12. ' We have perused the order, dated 15-9-1991. The operative part of the order is as follows: "In so far as the present application is concerned considering the facts that the said agreement had admittedly been entered into by the parties, the amount of Rs,9,00,000 has been paid by the plaintiff to defendant No,1, this amount is still held by the defendant No,1 and the said agreement has not formally been terminated by any of the parties it seems to me that the plaintiff has been able to make out a prima facie case for the grant of the injunction. In these circumstances, disposing or parting with the possession of, or in any way encumbering the said plot till further orders on the conditions that plaintiff shall deposit with the Nazir of the Court the amount of Rs,31,00,000 being the balance of the sale consideration within one month and on such deposit being made the Nazir will invest the said amount in Special Deposit Certificates."
13. ' It is to be noted that no reference has been made in the order to any particular terms and conditions of the agreement of sale showing that the balance sale consideration would be payable after depositing all the amounts to K.DA. After six months from the date of transfer order.
14. ' We have already reproduced the relevant terms and conditions of this sale agreement. The learned Single Judge observed that: "There can be no dispute that review cannot be granted for reexamination of the same arguments, but, in this case, the position is that at the time the said order dated 15-9-1992 was passed the terms of the agreement to sell between the parties were neither referred to in detail nor were considered. All that was argued at that time was that out of the sale consideration under the agreement an amount of Rs,9 lac had already been paid by the plaintiff to the defendant No,1 while an amount of Rs,31 lac still remained to be paid. Had any of the counsel pointed out the relevant clause of the agreement setting out the mode of payment of the price of the plot perhaps the condition of depositing the balance amount of Rs,31 lac with the Nazir of the Court would not have been imposed. There is no doubt that under the agreement this balance amount was not payable immediately but was contingent upon the allotment of the land to the defendant No,1 and thereafter out of this money the K.DA. Had to be paid the price of the land and for payment of the balance the plaintiff was still to have a period of six months at his disposal. Such being the terms for payment of the amount, the imposition of condition in the aforesaid order was undoubtedly contrary to the agreed terms between the parties and would appear to be a case of error apparent on the face of the order. The Court overlooked the material condition with regard to the payment of the balance and such condition would certainly have had bearing on the said order had it been noted then."
15. ' We would accordingly examine whether in law review can be permitted in the particular circumstances of the case. In this connection, it may also be noted that in the review order the learned Single Judge confines his attention only to condition No,5 of the sale agreement. The case does not come within the scope of the first condition that there was discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the respondent No,1. The sale agreement had not only been produced but reproduced in para. 3 of the plaint.
16. ' The next question for consideration is whether there is mistake apparent on the face of the record.
17. Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. Covers both cases of review on ground of mistake of fact as well as law provided it is apparent on the face of the record. It is not easy to define precisely or exhaustively the exact concept of what is an error apparent on the face of the record.
18. ' Some illustrations may be given as to what have been taken to be errors apparent on the face of the record. An error which does not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness has been treated as being apparent. Such errors are not demonstrated by any process of close reasoning. Any erroneous view of law on a controversial matter, or a wrong exposition of law, or a wrong application of law, or failure to apply correct law has never been treated as a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. If the Court applies its mind to a particular fact or law and then comes to a wrong conclusion after conscious reasoning, it can never be contended that the error is one apparent on the face of the record and can be corrected by it.
19. ' In Ibrahim Khan, Administrator, Union Council, Balochabad, Tharparker v. Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Ltd. 1980 SCM R 263 it was held that: "there was no ground for a review, because the fact that the judgment was pronounced on a point not argued before the learned Judges did not amount to an error apparent on the record within the meaning of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code."
20. ' The proposition of law is well-settled. But they are not applicable on the facts of the instant case.
21. ' In M. Moosa v. Muhammad and others 1975 SCM R 115 it was held that: "A review is not rehearing of a case. It is only available in certain special circumstances, namely, where some relevant evidence has been discovered which could not, in spite of due diligence, have been known to the party or been produced at the time of hearing or the Court has overlooked some material questions of fact or of law which would have a bearing on the decision or there is otherwise some apparent mistake or error on the face of the record. The ground that the Court has fallen into error in deciding on a particular question, or that a new ground which could have been urged was not urged at the original hearing, is not a ground for review, for, a review is not an appeal and cannot be allowed to be treated as an appeal."
22. ' In Manzoor Hussain v. Zohra Bibi PLD 1990 SC 924 it was held that: "review cannot be granted for merely re-examination of the same arguments."
23. ' As appears from the order, dated 30-9-1991 the learned Single Judge was not shown from the agreement of sale that the balance sale consideration was payable to the appellant after six months from the date of allotment order. At that stage his attention does not seem to have been drawn to the above condition. It was only at the review stage not only that condition but the entire agreement of sale was placed before him. The balance sale consideration was payable after six months from the date of allotment order. This is not capable of two views. The error here is apparent on the face of the record.
24. ' In this view of the case, the learned Single Judge was justified in reviewing his order. The order in question is upheld and the appeal is dismissed, but under the circumstances parties to bear their own costs of this appeal.