' JAVED IQBAL, J.--- The petitioner seeks review of the judgment, dated 30-3-2001 of this Court whereby the Civil Appeal bearing No,254 of 1995 preferred on behalf of the respondents have been accepted.
2. Heard Mr. Aftab Ahmad Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner and Mr. Shahid Hamid learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for respondents at length. All the points agitated before the Court while arguing the said appeal have been dilated upon and decided in a comprehensive manner vide judgment impugned. Rehearing of the appeal cannot be allowed at this stage. We may point out that scope of the review is limited and no error floating on record could be pointed out by the learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner.
3. It is well-settled by now that "a review petition is not competentwhere neither any new and important matter or evidence has been discovered nor is any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Such error may be an error of fact or of law but it must be self-evident and floating on surface and not requiring any elaborate discussion or process of ratiocination". Master Tahilram v. Lilaram 1970 SCM R 622, Abdul Khaliq Qureshi v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner 1968 SCM R 800, Rehmatullah v. Abdul Majid 1968 SCM R 838, Hassan Din v. Claims Commissioner, Lahore 1968 1047(2), Qamar Din v. Maula Baldish 1968 SCM R 1042(1), Muhammad Akram v. State 1970 SCM R 418 and Nawab Bibi v. Hamida Begum 1968 SCM R 104. There is no cavil with the proposition that "if judgment or finding, although suffering from an erroneous assumption of facts, is sustainable on other grounds available on record, review is not justifiable notwithstanding error being apparent on the face of the record". Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. State 1979 SCM R 427.
We have examined this review petition on the touchstone of criterion as mentioned above and we are of the view that it is without any substance. The review petition being meritless is dismissed.