' QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.---Through this petition, an unsuccessful pre-emptor has sought review of the judgment of this Court, dated 11-5-1999 whereby his petition for leave to appeal, C.P.L.A. No,1184 of 1998, directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dated 30-6-1998 passed in Civil Revision No,338-D of 1997 was dismissed
2. The petitioner's suit was decreed by the learned trial Court with explicit findings that he had made the requisite 'Talbs' before filing the suit. The findings on the issue of 'Talbs' were, however, reversed by the learned Appellate Court and the suit was dismissed. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a civil petition for leave to appeal but it was dismissed and leave was refused with the following observations:-- ' "We have carefully examined the above reasoning of the learned Judge in Chambers in arriving at the conclusion that Muhammad Hassan, the witness of the petitioner, had come to know about the mutation of the sale of pre-empted land on 27-3-1996 and are of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge in Chambers is neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record. The fact that on reappraisal of evidence, another view of the evidence is possible cannot be a ground for upsetting the findings of fact concurrently recorded by the two Courts below."
3. The grounds of review have not been stated in the petition distinctly. However, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the following errors were apparent on the face of the judgment under review:--
(1) The findings on the point of "Talb-i-Muwathibat" were the outcome of misreading of Mutation No,1788, entered on 27-3-1996 and attested on 21-5-1996, copy Exh.D.3. A perusal of the same would make it manifest that it was got entered by Javed Iqbal and not by Muhammad Hassan, petitioner's brother, who had informed the petitioner of the sale transaction on 5-5-1996. Absence of the name of Muhammad Hassan from the mutation clearly showed that he had not visited the Patwari on 27-3-1996.
(2) The presumption that Muhammad Hassan had met the Patwari on 27-3-1996 had taken the place of legal proof which was lacking.
(3) Only one view was possible on appreciation of evidence that pursuant to information conveyed by Muhammad Hassan the petitioner had got knowledge of the sale transaction of 5-5-1996 and had made "Talb-i-Muwathibat" then and there.
(4) The judgment of this Court reported as Muhammad Gul v. Muhammad Afzal (1991 SCMR 724) and Amir Jan and 3 others v. Haji Ghulam Muhammad (PLD 1997 SC 883) were overlooked.
' It was also contended that the petition was in line with the principles relating to view enumerated in Abdul Ghaffar-Abdur Rehman and others v. Asghar Ali and others (PLD 1998 SC 363).
4. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that it was not a fit case for review inasmuch as the review petition did not disclose any specific ground of review, all the points agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner were taken up and discussed at length in the judgment, the matter had been re-argued and that too in a manner as if an appeal had been preferred against the impugned judgment, there was no error apparent on the face of the judgment under review, the decision having been taken after full application of mind was not open to review on the ground that the view taken by the Court was erroneous or that another view was possible as held in Justice Sajjad Ali Shah v. Malik Asad Ali and 5 others (1999 SCM R 640), where the matter had been fully considered in the judgment it could not be allowed to be re-argued by way of review as observed in Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad v. Muhammad Tariq Pirzada and others (1999 SCM R 2189) and power of review cannot be invoked as a matter of routine as held in Mian Muhammad Jehangir and others v. Government of Punjab (1999 SCM R 2051). It was further submitted that on merits also a case for interference was not made out as the petitioner had definitely got the knowledge of the sale transaction on 28-3-1996 and in any case the sale mutation was attested on 27-3-1996, therefore, the petitioner was deemed to have acquired knowledge of attestation of the mutation of sale within two weeks thereof in view of law declared in Muhammad Ramzan v. Lal Khan (1995 SCM R 1510).
5. Before adverting to the question as to whether the review petition merits acceptance or not it will be advantageous to reproduce hereunder the principles governing review of Supreme Court judgment contained in Abdul Gahffar-Abdur Rehman and others v. Ashgar Ali and others (PLD 1998 SC 363).
"(i) That every judgment pronounced by the Supreme Court is presumed to be a considered solemn and final decision on all points arising out of the case;
(ii) that if the Court has taken a conscious and deliberate decision on a point of fact or law, a review petition will not lie;
(iii) that the fact the view canvassed in the review petition is more reasonable than the view which found favour with the Court in the judgment/order of which review is sought, is not sufficient to sustain a review petition;
(iv) that simpliciter the factum that a material irregularity was committed would not be sufficient to review a judgment/order but if the material irregularity was of such nature, as to convert the process from being one in aid of justice to a process of injustice, a review petition would lie;
(v) that simpliciter the fact that the conclusion recorded in a judgment/order is wrong does not warrant review of the same but if the conclusion is wrong because something obvious has been overlooked by the Court or it has failed to consider some important aspect of the matter, a review petition would lie;
(vi) that if the error in the judgment/order is so manifest and is floating on the surface, which is so material that had the same been noticed prior to the rendering of the judgment the conclusion would have been different, in such a case, a review petition, would lie;
(vii) that the power of review cannot be invoked as a routine matter to rehear a case which has already been decided nor change of a counsel would warrant sustaining of a review petition, but the same can be pressed into service where a glaring omission or patent mistake has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility;
(viii) that the Constitution does not place any restriction on the power of the Supreme Court to review its earlier decisions or even to depart from them nor the doctrine stare decision will come in its way so long as review is warranted in view of the significant impact on the fundamental rights of citizens or in the interest of public good; that the Court is competent to review its judgment/order suo motu without any formal application;
(x) that under the Supreme Court Rules, it sits in divisions and not as a whole. Each Bench whether small or large exercises the same power vested in the Supreme Court and decisions rendered by the Benches irrespective of their size, are decisions of the Court having the same binding nature."
' As mentioned earlier the grounds of review have not been spelt out in the review petition clearly and were formulated by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments. The omission cannot be overlooked or condoned as it has changed the tenor of the review petition completely and transformed it to a petition for leave to appeal. Be that as it may, even if the omission is condoned a case for review is not made out in view of the principles highlighted above.
All the points raised at the hearing of the petition for leave to appeal were duly considered and the decision taken by the Court is conscious and deliberate by any standard. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner amount to a request for rehearing the points which were dealt with in the judgment at length. There is no error of law or fact apparent on the face of the judgment which is a condition precedent for grant of review. There is nothing on the record from which it could be gathered that the Court had failed to consider some important aspect of the case or overlooked something obvious. The view canvassed in the review petition may be more reasonable and the conclusion recorded in the judgment may be erroneous but these factors cannot change the scenario being hit by principles (iii) and (v) (supra).
7. The question of misreading of evidence was taken up pursuant to the following observations and resolved against the petitioner:-- ' "It may be mentioned here that the question raised in the present petition for leave to appeal is principally a question of fact which stood concluded by the finding of the first Appellate Court confirmed in Revision by the learned Judge in Chambers. This concurrent finding of facts by the two Courts below cannot be disturbed by this Court, unless such finding is arrived at by misreading of the evidence or by perverse appreciation of the evidence on record."
8. The presumption-related question was also discussed in detail and determined. It was held that the inference drawn by the two Courts below from the evidence recorded in the case that Muhammad Hassan being the transferor of the property in favour of his son Javed Iqbal was in all probability present when the sale was entered in the revenue record by the Patwari was justified and not the result of misreading of evidence.
9. The criticism that the authorities reported as 1999 SCM R 724 and PLD 1997 SC 883 were ignored is rather naive. It is evident from the record of C.P.L.A No,1184 of 1998 that these authorities were not cited at all. In any case the same are not relevant, in that, the former essentially pertains to "Talb-i- Ishhad" and the ratio of the latter is that details and particulars of "Talb-i-Muwathibat" need not be alleged or indicated in the plaint. Needless to mention that the petitioner's suit was not dismissed on the ground that the plaint was silent about the details of "Talb-i-Muwathibat".
10. Adverting to the question of misreading of evidence, which was agitated at the hearing of the petition for leave to appeal and was attended to by the Court, we find that mere fact that Mutation No,1788 was not entered at the behest of Muhammad Hassan is not enough to displace the inference drawn from his statement that he had met the Patwari on 27-3-1996. The portion of his statement reproduced in the judgment leads to an irresistible conclusion that he had met the Patwari on the day when the mutation in favour of his son Javed Iqbal was entered. The said mutation was entered on 27-3-1996, therefore, the date, namely, 4-5-1996 mentioned in his statement is to be read as 27-3-1996. No doubt Mutation No,1788 was attested on 21-5-1996 but it is nowhere mentioned in his statement that he had met the Patwari on 4-5-1996 to enquire about the mutation entered on his behalf in favour of his son Javed Iqbal.
11. The date on which the petitioner had got knowledge of the sale transaction has been determined in the judgment under review, therefore, there is no need to discuss the law laid down in 1995 SCM R 1510 (supra).
For the reasons stated above, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.