1. ' This is an application under section 151 & Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. Read with section 21 of the General Clauses Act, made by and on behalf of the respondents praying review of the judgment dated 1-2- 1995 passed in the Civil Revision No,16 of 1994, whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court was set aside and that of the trial Court were maintained.
2. ' I have heard Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Bhurgari as well as Mr. Muzaffarul Haq.
3. ' Mr. Bhurgari argued the same points and advanced the same pleas, which were almost, already argued and advanced by his predecessor Mr. Illahi Bux Kehar, Advocate for the respondents and are already discussed, evaluated and determined in detail in judgment dated 1-2-1995 of which the review is sought by the respondents.
4. ' It shall not be out of place to mention that at the very outset, attention of Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Bhurgari was invited to restrict himself to the scope of review under Order 47 rule 1 C.P.C., while making his submissions but he argued the matter as it is not review application but .a Revision Application, which is yet to be decided. He argued on the following points and cited the decision in support of his submissions:--
(A) Ignoring of the decisions of the superior Courts while deciding a matter, is a valid ground for review. He placed his reliance on (1) 1982 CLC 1306, (2) 1975 SCMR 16 (3) PLD 1978 SC 96; (4) 1989 SCMR 34. There can be no dispute about the said proposition of law; but the learned counsel could not be able to point out any such instance in the judgment, of which the review is sought;
(B) Disparaging remarks made in judgment against, a person who is neither party nor a witness in the case, can be reviewed. He relied upon (1) PLD 1958 SC 333;
(2) PLD 1963 SC 1; (3) PLD 1964 Karachi 328. It appears, that the acts of A.S.I.P. Rajab Ali referred in the judgment is being made a ground for review, but it is strange that the said A.S.I.P. Has not come in Court for the expungment of the same, but his cause, if any, is being pleaded by a party who is beneficiary of the acts of the said A.S.I.P; (C). It be presumed that the registered sale deed executed by the applicant was an ordinary and normal act, and no oral evidence could be given any weight over it. In support of his submissions, he referred (1) 1984 CLC 1093; (2) 1994 SCMR 2142; (3) 1971 CLC 776; (4) PLD 1961 Peshawar 62; (5)
5. 1970 SCMR 696; (6) PLD 1959 Lahore 932; (7) 1991 SCMR 2126; (8) 1985 SCMR 1052; (9) PLD 1964 SC 598; (10) 1988 ' SCMR 753; (11) PLD 1963 Karachi 960; (12) PLD 1959 PC 72 and (13) PLD 1.969 SC 167.
6. The validity of the sale-deed is already dealt with while deciding Issues Nos.1, 2 and 4, as such it is not necessary to discuss it again, as there is a settled principle of law, that review cannot be granted to re-examine the same arguments. Reference can be made to a case, Mansoor Hussain v. Mst. Zohra Bibi reported in PLD 1990 SC 924.
(D) Suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary party i,e, A.S.I.P. Rajab Ali and the Sub-Registrar, Reliance was placed on PLD 1957 Lahore 882. Since there was no such plea in the written statement, no such issue was framed. Moreover this point was neither argued nor determined by the trial, appellate and this Court. I am clear in my mind that no suit shall fail for non-joinder of any person, against whom no relief is prayed.
7. ' Mr. Muzaffarul Haq learned advocate for applicant has opposed the application. He submitted that in case the respondents were not satisfied with the judgment of this Court, they should have approached the Hon`ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, instead of filing this Review Petition.
8. Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Bhurgari learned Advocate for the respondents failed to show any good reason within the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C., in support of the instant application, to persuade me to review my earlier judgment, as such C.M.A. No,185 of 1995 fails and is hereby dismissed, being highly misconceived with no order as to costs.
9. Review dismissed.