PLJ 2008
Present: Muhammad Alam Khan, J.
AHMAD DIN--Petitioner
versus
Mst. GUL ZEBA and others--Respondents
Rev. P. No. 30 of 2007 in C.R. No. 467 of 2006, decided on 18.1.2006.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--
----S. 114--Review--Factual and legal aspects--Question--New material emerged warranting the filing of review petition--Determination--Review is competent when a person is aggrieved by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by High Court, but from which no appeal has been preferred or by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed. [P. 91] A
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1898)--
----O. XLVII, R.1 & S. 114--Review petition--Question of law and fact--Review can be sought enumerated--Application for review of judgment--Applicability--Review will be competent, on discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due efforts or diligence was not in the knowledge of a party, if the same was in existence at the time when the lis was subjudice before Court and at the time of its decision--Review jurisdiction will not be applicable to a case if the important material or evidence had come into existence after the matter is decided by Court. [P. 92] B
Review--
----Principle of law--Review jurisdiction--If there is some mistake or error apparent on the record of the case that can also be a ground for review--Held: No such new material has been brought on record to warrant interference in review jurisdiction of High Court--Petition dismissed. [P. 92] C
Petitioner in person.
Said Wali son of the respondent as well as Attorney for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 18.1.2008.
Order
Parties were heard in details in support of the Review Petition. Perusal of the record reveals that this Court on 9.3.2007 heard C.R. No. 467/2006 on merits in which both the parties were being represented by their learned counsels. Ahmad Din petitioner was being represented by Mr. M. Qasim Khan Khattak, Advocate while Mst. Gul Zeba was being represented by Mr. Abdul Qadir Khattak, Advocate. The Hon'ble Judge Mr. Justice Ijaz-ul-Hassan heard the Revision Petition in detail touching all factual and legal aspects of the case. The case-law cited by the learned counsels for the parties was also referred to and after scanning the entire evidence and perusal of the record of the case, the learned Judge came to the conclusion as under:--
"Pursuant to above, I find that appraisal of evidence undertaken by the trial Court and Appellate Court is perfectly in accordance with the principles settled by the superior Courts about appraisal of evidence in civil cases and the same does not suffer from any legal infirmity, which could be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. The civil revision is devoid of force. The same is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs."
Sd/- Ijaz-ul-Hassan, Judge.
Dated 9.3.2007
2. In support of the review petition nothing is available on the record that what new material emerged warranting the filing of the instant review petition under Section-114 CPC which is reproduced below in verbatim--
114. Review. Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved.
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred.
(b) By a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or
(c) By a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes; may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.
(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to a review of any judgment pronounced or any order made by the Supreme Court."
3. The above reproduction of section of law would show that review is competent when a person is aggrieved by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred or by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed.
4. In the case in hand the right of appeal and revision petition were fully exhausted by the petitioners and in support of the respective contentions of the parties arguments were advanced and case law cited, which were duly incorporated in the judgment and taken into consideration by the honourable Judge while deciding Civil Revision Petition No. 467 of 2006 titled Ahmad Din Vs. Gul Gulzeba, nothing new has been brought on record to show as to what important question of law or fact has not been taken into consideration by this Court. The grounds on which a review can be sought are enumerated in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code which are follows:--
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 form 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 reason, 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."
5. The above reproduction of the provisions of Civil Procedure Code would show that review will be competent, on discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due efforts or diligence was not in the knowledge of a party and that too, if the same was in existence at the time when the lis was subjudice before a Court and at the time of its decision. Review jurisdiction will not be applicable to a case if the important material or evidence had come into existence after the matter is decided by a Court. The other principle of law is that party will also show to the Court that he was never negligent and the new material discovered must have a direct nexus with the matter under Review, which if taken into consideration will directly affect the judgment or order under review. Lastly if there is some mistake or error apparent on the record of the case that can also be a ground for review in the present case no such new material has been brought on record to warrant interference in review jurisdiction of this Court.
6. The judgment in Civil Revision No. 467/2006 has been announced by the honourable Judge of this Court after hearing the learned counsels for the parties and scanning the entire evidence on record and also considering all the relevant case law cited at the bar such detailed and speaking judgment based on merits, is not open to review unless and until new material is brought on record or it is pointed out that some important document has not been considered by this Court, while deciding the main revision petition.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, this Review petition is without any merit, which is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(R.A.) Petition dismissed.