QAZI EHSANULLAH QURESHI, J.---Speen Bacha and others, petitioners have filed the instant petition for review of the judgment/order dated 13-3-2001 passed by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of the undersigned (Justice Qazi Ehsanullah Qureshi) and His Lordship Mr. Justice Sardar Muhammad Raza, then Chief Justice of this Court whereby Writ Petition No. 1400 of 2000 was dismissed in limine along with Civil Miscellaneous No. 147 of 2000.
2. At this juncture it is necessary to give short facts of the litigation between the parties. Mst.
Neelam, respondent No. 1 and her daughter Mst. Sheema filed a suit against Azizud din, husband of respondent No. 1 for the grant of decree in respect of golden ornaments weighing 15 Tolas and dower amounting to Rs.1,80,000, for maintenance for the period of three years Q Rs.5,000 per month, Rs.52,200 in lieu of cost of dowery and lastly dissolution of marriage through 'Khulla'. The said suit was contested and written statement was filed but during the pendency of the suit the defendant Azizud Din husband of Mst. Neelam died and the suit stood abated vide order dated 2- 3-1999. Thereafter the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein filed another suit against the legal heirs of her deceased husband before the Family Court for the recovery of golden ornaments and recovery of dowry amounting to Rs.52,200 etc. The trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for except 10 Tolas golden ornaments. The petitioners aggrieved from the said judgment and decree of the trial Court preferred an appeal while the respondent No.1 filed cross-objections. The learned Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 20-9-2000 dismissed both the appeal and the cross-objection.
Being not satisfied with the above judgment and decree of the Appellate Court, the petitioners filed Constitutional petition (Writ Petition No.1400 of 2000) before this Court which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court in limine vide order dated 13-3-2001 but on pre-admission notice which is now under review.
3. We have heard the learned counsel' for the petitioners and have gone through the record of the case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners agitated almost the same grounds in the instant review petition which have already been advanced by him at the time of hearing of the Writ Petition No. 1400 of 2000, decided on 13-3-2001 i.e. That non-payment of dower has not been proved; that the movable property about which the suit was instituted exists at Malakand Division while the petitioners belong to District Dir; that the petitioners No.4 to 10 are not the legal heirs of Azizud Din deceased. So far the contention as to the non-payment of dower is concerned, it is already decided up to the High Court, forum which contain factual controversy culminated in the hierarchy, hence could not be interfered with. About the movable property at District Dir, it is also misconceived as the respondent No.1 hails from Malakand Division, Nikah and Rukhsati had taken place at Malakand and she is still residing with her parents at Malakand. In Family Court cases for the purpose of determining jurisdiction of Family Court, the words "ordinarily resides" must be construed in the context of an estranged were who has left her husband's abode and has sought residence at any other place of her own choice. Reliance in this regard is placed on (PLD 1976 Karachi 978).
5. As to the contention about petitioners No.4 to 10 that they are not the legal heirs of deceased Azizuddin, its detail however, is that the petitioner No.1 is the father, petitioner No.2 is the mother, petitioner No.3 is the first were, petitioners Nos.4 to 7 are the brothers and petitioners Nos.8 and 9 are the sisters of the deceased Azizud Din while petitioner No. 10 is relative of the said deceased who had two wives from whom he had four sons and three daughters plus father and mother who are legally and according to Muhammadan Law are the actual heirs, if strictly law of inheritance is applied but it is not a case of inheritance. It is a case of dower etc. And the Court had considered that in whose possession the assets of the deceased are and who is enjoying, controlling and administrating the said assets.
6. For the determination of the instant review petition it is worthwhile to reproduce the provisions of Order 47, Rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Code which is to the following effect:--
(1) Application for review of judgment.---(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved--
(a) 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 reasons, 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. "
7. The grounds mentioned in the instant review petition do not fall within the ambit of any of the conditions enumerated in the above provisions of law. The petitioners have neither based their objections on discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within their knowledge or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for other sufficient reasons. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his review petition have already been considered by this Court and thoroughly discussed in the judgment under review. Needless to say that in the exercise of powers of review, the Courts are not obliged to re-hear the matter as an appeal against its own judgment.
No error apparent on the face of the record was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners nor any other sufficient reasons were advanced to justify the review of the judgment.
8. Finding no substance in the present review petition, the same is hereby dismissed in limine alongwith Civil Miscellaneous No. 20 of 2001.