' NASIM HASAN SHAH, C.J.---This is a petition for review of the judgment of this Court passed in Civil Appeal No, 163 of 1991 on 23-12-1992.
2. The appeal was accepted on the short ground that it appears to be based on the assumption that the learned counsel for the respondent (Government of West Pakistan) had been fully heard before accepting the appeal of Mr. Zakaullah (petitioner herein and respondent in the appeal before this Court). While the memorandum of appearance indicated that Nemo represented the Provincial Government at the time of hearing. It was accordingly, observed by this Court that the assumption that its learned counsel was heard at length before the appeal was disposed of was misconceived. The judgment of the High Court was set aside on this view of the matter and the back to it for decision afresh after hearing both the parties.
3. In this review petition Rana Muhammad Sarwar has pointed out that although in the attendance column Nemo has been mentioned for the Provincial Government but in paras. 6 and 7 of the judgment it has been stated that the learned counsel for the parties had been heard. Hence this Court had committed an error patent on the face of the record in considering that no one had appeared for the Provincial Government. Hence the case required review.
4. No doubt there is some confusion on this point. However, we think that even otherwise the judgment of the High Court did require interference and in the result no substantial difference has been made, on account of this error. The petitioner herein, Zakaullah, had clearly accepted the position before the Department that he had received the payment in full and final settlement of his claim and had given an undertaking not to raise any dispute with respect to this claim in future.
This undertaking, however, was not given its due weight by the Arbitrator and the High Court upheld the view of the Arbitrator.
5. We consider that after the acknowledgement of receipt of payment in full and final settlement of his claim by the contractor and his undertaking not to raise any dispute with respect to this claim in future much deeper consideration was necessary to be given to this aspect of the matter than has been bestowed to it by the Arbitrator and the High Court. We, therefore, think that no interference with o'ur earlier order of remanding the case is called for. Petition for review is accordingly dismissed.
Review dismissed.