Review

  1. If a court omits to dispose of in its judgment a point which was argued at the time of hearing the settled practice is that an averment to that effect is made and an affidavit is filed in support thereof. Muhammad Yasin v. Jan Muhammad 1992 SCR 129 (B)
  2. Mere incorrectness of a decision on a particular issue or question falling for determination in a case can never be a ground for review — Review not allowed merely that a party to it conceives himself to be dissatisfied with the decision. Allah Ditta v. Mehrban 1992 SCR 145 (A)
  3. Well settled principle- If a point is not raised at the time of hearing of appeal it cannot form the basis of a review petition. Muhammad Yasin v. Jan Muhammad 1992 SCR 129 (A)
  4. After the final determination the power to vary it merely because it may be later on shown to be wrong or unjust in some respect is not available while exercising the power of review. The correction of mistaken conclusion does not come within the ambit of review. Muhammad Gulzar v. Qasim Hussain Shah 1993 SCR 285 (A)
  5. Incorrect reproduction of section- If the findings or the result remains the same and the judgment is not effected no review is maintainable. Nazir Hussain Shah v. Sain M. Khan 1993 SCR 51 (A)
  6. Mere incorrectness of a decision on a particular issue or a question falling for determination in a case can never be a ground for review. If such review is allowed it would amount to granting the Court a jurisdiction to hear appeal against its own judgment.Review cannot be allowed merely on the ground that a party to it conceives himself to be dissatisfied with the decision made therein. Allah Ditta  v. Mehrban 1993 SCR 18 (A)
  7. Review — Limitation — Grounds for — Question of limitation and the question of grounds on which the review would lie are two aspects of the matter which are independent of the question whether a successive review can be entertained. Sardar Ali & others v. Karamat Ali Khan & others 1993 SCR 226 (C)
  8. Review competent only if there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record — Points which are not pressed at the time of arguments, cannot be made basis for review. Allah Ditta v. Abdul Ghafoor 1993 SCR 63 (A)
  9. Though the limitation is prescribed for making a review application, the exercise of this power by the Custodian is not limited by time. Sardar Ali v. Karamat Ali Khan  1993 SCR 226 (D)
  10. Findings of the Court given in the appeal after considering the relevant material- cannot be made basis for the review unless there is mistake apparent on the face of record. Zafar Iqbal v. Allotment Committee of Municipal Committee, Mirpur 1994 SCR 157 (A)
  11. Even the wrong findings which have been given after considering the material on the record — Review would not lie. Zafar Iqbal  v. Allotment Committee of MCM 1994 SCR 157 (B)
  12. Section 46-D of the Interim Constitution Act, 1974, read with Order XLVI of the AJK Supreme Court Rules — The power of review is vested in this Court under S.46-D of the Interim Constitution Act — This power is further elucidated in Order XLVI of AJK Supreme Court Rules which provision in turn makes a reference to rule 1 of Order XLVII of the C.P.C. — In all provisions there is no concept that this Court may grant permission to a person to file a review petition — Application is dismissed. Gohar Rehman Chughtai v. Azad Govt. 1996 SCR 324 (A)
  13. Review Criminal — While deciding appeal reason recorded by the Shariat Court for awarding life imprisonment duly considered by this Court — No error has been pointed out — Review dismissed. Muhammad Ramzan v. The State & another 1998 SCR 47 (B)
  14. A review petition is competent only if there is a mistake apparent on the face of record or for a reason which is alalogous to the ‘apparent mistake’ — Finding given in appeal after considering the relevant material on record would not justify the review of an order or judgment — The question of raising or non-raising the presumption under law is always based on the relevant facts, and it is discretionary with the Court to raise presumption in the given circumstances. Abdul Qadir & 2 others v. Abdur Rehman and 5 others 1999 SCR 323 (A)
  15. Points argued — Finally resolved one way or the other cannot be reopened as the scope of review is very limited and it cannot be treated as an appeal so as to reopen the points which stood already resolved. Alam Din v. Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Mirpur and 4 others 1999 SCR 343 (B)
  16. West Pakistan Muslim Personal (Shariat) Application Act, 1948 was not in notice when judgment was written — Wrong conclusions were drawn which are inconsistent with the aforesaid provision — Judgment has been reviewed and respective shares have been calculated in light of section 3. Walayat Ali & 3 others v. Alif Noor and 21 others 2000 SCR 283 (A)
  17. Powers u/s 43(6) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957 are unlimited and Custodian is competent to go into the question of genuineness or otherwise of an allotment. Muhammad Azad Baig and 6 others v. Custodian and 2 others 2000 SCR 142 (D)
  18. Finding given in appeal after considering relevant material on record would not justify review of an order or judgment — Points finally resolved one way or the other cannot be re-opened as the scope of review is very limited. Mehmood Ahmed  v. M. Idrees & another 2000 SCR 564 (D)
  19. The powers of review have been conferred on the Supreme Court by section 42-D of the Constitution and the grounds on which a review lies are provided in Order XLVI of the Supreme Court Rules — As a necessary consequence in case of difference of opinion, a review petition has to be referred to a learned third Judge of the Court. Al-Khair Trust of Pakistan and another v. Prof.G.J. Preshan Khattak and 4 others 2002 SCR 476 (L)
  20. The point that the petitioner has made huge improvements in land in dispute was not argued at the time of hearing the appeal nor an affidavit to this effect has been appended by the petitioner or his counsel, therefore, the point cannot be allowed to be raised at the stage of review petition. Muhammad Sadiq v. Begum Jan & 8 others 2003 SCR 1 (A)
  21. Most of the counsel have made it a routine to file review petitions who are probably under the impression that the review petition is to be disposed of and heard like an appeal which is legally as well as factually incorrect — The review petition can be entertained only if there is apparent mistake or error on the face of record — It cannot be entertained on points which have resolved either rightly or wrongly — The advocates drafting the review petitions, in future should be careful not to make it a routine to file review petitions like appeals — Counsel for the petitioner given notice for filing false affidavit. Muhammad Sadiq  v. Begum Jan & 8 others 2003 SCR 1 (B)
  22. The review petition cannot be entertained to decide those points which stood already resolved. Azad Govt. & 4 others v. Muhammad Azad Khan and another 2003 SCR 61 (A)
  23. Objection that, copy of agreement-deed was not true copy of the contract, was not raised in the first round of litigation, no such objection was raised in second round of litigation before the High Court, nor was raised in this Court in second round of litigation — No explanation has been furnished that how the copy of agreemen-deed was provided to respondents-contractor containing signature of Chief Engineer and why the appellant failed to raise any objection about correctness of agreement-deed — This shows that this is after thought — The Govt. is not taking notice in respect of negligence of important persons of different departments causing huge loss to Govt. exchequer — The Govt. should recover losses caused to it and by such employees who on account of negligence, nepotism or favouritism found responsible. Azad Govt. v. M. Azad Khan 2003 SCR 61 (B)
  24. In land acquisition cases no evidence is provided on behalf of relevant department of Govt. is support of its claim — Still on the request of department the Govt. is preferring appeals before the Courts of law which are ultimately dismissed on account of lack of proof. Azad Govt. & 4 others v. Muhammad Azad Khan and another 2003 SCR 61 (C)
  25. Review cannot be allowed to reopen the case for the purpose of affording rehearing of the points already resolved — The Courts have gone to the extent that even if erroneous conclusion cannot be regarded as a mistake apparent on the face of record for review. Ajaib Hussain and another v. Zareen Akhter and 11 others 2003 SCR 66 (C)
  26. A review is competent only if there is a mistake apparent on the face of record — Findings given in appeal or petition after considering the relevant material would not justify the review — The scope of review is very limited — It cannot be treated at par with an appeal — Points finally resolved cannot be reopened. Arshad Mehmood Shah and 2 others v. Chairman AKLASC and 10 others 2003 SCR 306 (A)
  27. All the grounds raised or irrelevant and frivolous — In the earlier round of litigation whereby case was remanded to the High Court would not provide any ground for acceptance of review — The review petition is frivolous it was required that exemplary costs may be granted against the petitioner — The counsel is a young Advocate such an order avoided — He should be careful in future. Arshad Mehmood Shah v. Chairman AKLASC and others 2003 SCR 306 (B)
  28. The point whether rightly or wrongly has been resolved — Review not maintainable. Azad Government v. Muhammad Suleman and 6 others 2003 SCR 423 (A)
  29. Deputation policy — Claim of promotion with retrospective effect — Point was strongly raised — Due to mistaken belief that no question of seniority or promotion was relevant for disposal of appeal, this point was left-unattended by observing “we need not to dilate on the said point” — This was the only point raised in appeal and culminated in the judgment under review — Held: An error apparent on the face of record was committed — Review petition accepted — Respondents were directed to promote the petitioner with retrospective effect. Muhammad Naeem Khan v. Azad Govt. and 2 others 2004 SCR 97 (A)
  30. Review drafting of — The learned counsel for the petitioner, while drafting review petition, stated that the findings recorded by the apex Court are perverse — The learned counsel must know the meaning of the word ‘perverse’ — He will be careful in future to draft a petition like this. Sawar Khan v. Banaras Khan and 2 others 2004 SCR 506 (A)
  31. Review — Inconsistent and different plea cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in review petition. Muhammad Ismail v. Ch. Maqbool Ahmed and 11 others 2004 SCR 16 (A)
  32. Some counsel are filing review petitions just in routine in the shape of appeals — This practice is highly objectionable — It must be stopped, otherwise proper proceedings shall be taken against such Advocates who are creating false hopes in the mind of litigant public by filing review petitions having no substance — The names of such Advocates even may be removed from the roll of Advocates of this Court. Khan Muhammad Khan v. Azad Govt 2004 SCR 348 (B)
  33. View of this Court expressed by full Court cannot be reviewed as no review petition was filed against the judgment. Ehtesab Bureau AJ&K v. Muhammad Hanif 2004 SCR 284 (B)
  34. Where there is an error apparent on the face of record the Court can review the judgment even reversing the judgment already pronounced. Ghazi Vegetable Ghee & Oil Mills Limited Mangla Mirpur  v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & 3 others 2004 SCR 158 (I)
  35. In recording fresh finding on the writ petition the learned Judge High Court impliedly reviewed the earlier order of learned Chief Justice which is not legally justified. Gulzar Ahmed v. Naveed Ahmed & 5 others 2005 SCR 46 (B)
  36. Successive review applications by the same party on the same grounds is against all cannons of justice and law — Powers of review vested in Custodian flow from sub-section (6) and (6)(A) of section 43 of Evacuee property Act, 1957 — Custodian competent to review his own order or order of his predecessor in office on any ground as the “justice of the case may require” — It was not the justice of the case to allow three successive review petitions and then cancel the sale deed. Muhammd Khalil & 2 others  v. Abdul Sattar & 8 others 2005 SCR 97 (D)
  37. Review petitions entertained by Custodian were time-barred which could not be entertained. M. Khalil & 2 others v. Abdul Sattar & 8 others 2005 SCR 97 (F) 2002 SCR 134, 183 rel.
  38. The scope and nature of review proceedings in a criminal case in the apex Court are definitely limited to error apparent on the face of record which must be so manifest and so clear that no Court should permit such an error to remain on record — It may be an error of fact or law but it must be an error which is self-evident and flouting on the surface of the judgment and does not require any elaborate discussion or process of ratiocination. State through Advocate General v. Hakam Deen & 15 others 2005 SCR 374 (U)
  39. The scope of review on a point of law unless it is prima facie in violation of any provision of Constitution or law, is negligible — Consistent with this Court’s earlier view on the point of review that the points finally resolved one way or the other cannot be reopened, unless there is a mistake apparent on the face of record — Even incorrectness of a decision on a particular issue or question falling for determination in a case can never be a ground for review nor can the review be allowed merely on the ground that a party to it conceived himself to be dissatisfied with the decision — It is the prerogative of the Court to pronounce what the law is or what does it mean, not for a party to expect in the way it wants. State through Adv. General v. Hakam Deen & 15 others 2005 SCR 374 (T) 1999 SCR 343, 2003 SCR 564, 1992 SCR 145, 2003 SCR 306 and 2003 SCR 423 rel.
  40. Points once decided cannot be reopened as the jurisdiction in review is not akin to appeal — Only an error apparent on the face of  record can be reviewed — Review petition dismissed. Maj. (Rtd) Refique Ahmed Durrani v. AJ&K Uinversity & 5 others 2005 SCR 373 (A)
  41. Rehearing of the points already decided one way or other cannot be allowed — It would amount to an appeal against the Judgment of this Court which is not warranted by law — Under rules an error apparent on the face of record can only be made ground for review. AJK Govt. & 3 others v. Gulzar Ahmed Abbasi & 11 others 2005 SCR 361 (B)
  42. Review is not a regular remedy — However Court has power and is in fact obliged to review an order which suffers from patent error which is floating on the face of record — The Court should correct itself if it has gone wrong — The errors or wrongs ought to be substantial and speaking — A view formed by interpretation of law and elucidation of facts would not be deemed to be wrong simply for the reason that a view contrary to it could also be taken or it was possible to be taken — Courts have to meet the ends of justice and carry out the purpose of all contemporary laws. Muhammad Riaz & 8 others v. Pervaiz Mehandi & 72 others 2005 SCR 364 (A)
  43. The High Court not decided the disputed question of law — While setting aside the judgment of the High Court it was appropriate to remand the case to the High Court for decision on merits — On account of human error while recording the judgment under review it was not done — Review petition was allowed — The case was remanded to the High Court for decision on merits. Munawar Hussain Shah v. Ali Shan & 3 others 2006 SCR 74 (A)
  44. Review is not a regular remedy — However, the Court has power and is in fact obliged to review an order, which suffers from patent error which is floating on the face of record — Instead of being stuck to an error, the Court should correct itself if it has gone wrong — Errors or wrongs ought to be substantial and speaking — A view formed by the Court by interpretation of law and elucidation of facts, according to its perception, would not be deemed to be wrong, simply for the reason that view contrary to it could also be taken or it was possible to be taken — As for as possible the Courts have to meet the ends of justice and carry out the purpose of all  contemporary laws not by conceding to the contentions of the parties, but according to due appreciation of law and facts — Contentions and view of the parties are to be considered compassionately, but decision had to be in light of law which Court perceives. M. Riaz v. Pervaiz Mehandi 2006 SCR 195 (A)
  45. It is consistent practice of law and this Court that a point which has been argued, discussed and decided it shall not be opened to review. Rashida Awan v. District Education Officer and 8 others 2007 SCR 406 (A) 1993 SCR 285, 1994 SCR 157 & 1999 SCR 343 rel.
  46. If the judgment of the Court is contrary to law or a rule or has been passed without having regard to the law or discussing it — The Court is open to consider the point in review in light of law or rule which has been ignored or not followed — If the review is sought on the ground that a different view is equally possible as against that view adopted by the Court in light of law and rules that cannot be considered a sufficient ground for review, because it is not against the law or rule, unless it is manifestly against justice. Rashida Awan v. DEO. and 8 others 2007 SCR 406 (B)
  47. New case cannot be allowed to be set up at review stage. Syed Walayat Hussain Shah v. Syed Inayat Hussain Shah and 4 others 2007 SCR 403 (A)
  48. Re-appraisal of evidence or new evidence cannot be allowed to be pressed into service at the stage of review. Syed Walayat H. Shah v. Syed Inayat Hussain Shah and 4 others 2007 SCR 403 (B)
  49. Inability of a Judge of High Court to hear a case involving his own interest including those persons whom he regards and treats as near relatives or close friends or his clients — Can be considered only — If specifically pleaded before the said Judge or raised before the higher forum — Held: Same cannot be made a ground for review of the judgment. Azad Govt. & 2 others v. Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Khan 2008 SCR 256 (A)
  50. Review or reconsideration cannot be sought on the ground that the judge who decided the matter in High Court, on the petition of a particular person, had been his counsel during his career as an Advocate. Azad Govt. & 2 others v. Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Khan 2008 SCR 56 (F)
  52. Finality attached to the findings recorded by the superior Courts cannot be disputed on the grounds which were not taken in High Court or in Supreme Court — Similarly the argument that the learned counsel, who argued the case in Supreme Court, failed to raise the points, cannot be made a ground of review. Azad Govt. & 2 others v. Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Khan 2008 SCR 256 (G)
  53. Supreme Court has vast powers to review its judgment — But the facts remains there that review can be sought against a judgment on the basis of legal defect in the judgment on the face of record — Held: This power cannot be exercised on the ground of inability of a Judge to hear a case — Held further: Review lies against a judgment and not against the conduct of Judge. Azad Govt. & 2 others v. Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Khan 2008 SCR 256 (H)
  54. A party cannot be allowed rehearing of a case on point of interpretation of a document particularly when it has been held that a document is to be considered as a whole — Held: It is settled principle of interpretation of a document that the document is to be saved as far as possible. Muhammad Basharat v. Mrs. Naseem Begum & 3 others 2009 SCR 185 (E)
  55. If a clerical or arithmetical mistake in final order comes in the knowledge of the Tribunal — The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the order on its own motion and if any application for review of final order is field and the application is duly supported by an affidavit of the party, the Tribunal has to adopt the procedure laid down in Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal procedure Rules, 1976 — No separate procedure has been laid down specifically for dealing with the application for review — In that case the procedure provided for appeals has to be adopted — R.11 deals with procedure of admitting the appeal for regular hearing and summoning the respondents. Talat Yasmeen v. Samina Rashid and 4 others 2009 SCR 333 (D)
  56. If the Tribunal admits the appeal for regular hearing then a notice has to bee issued to the other party — Similar procedure has to be adopted in the case an application for review against final order is field before the Tribunal — The Tribunal firstly has to be examine it and if the Tribunal admits it for regular hearing then a notice of regular hearing of the review petition and the day fixed for its hearing has to be issued to the other party. Talat Yasmeen v. Samina Rashid and 4 others 2009 SCR 333 (E)
  57. Order/judgment can be altered or added at any time before its pronouncement in the open Court — Once the order/judgment is announced in open Court it cannot be altered except the procedure laid down in the relevant law. Talat Yasmeen v. Samina Rashid and 4 others 2009 SCR 333 (H)
  58. The controversy cannot be reopened in review jurisdiction — Review petition dismissed. Muhammad Basharat v. Mrs. Naseem Begum & 3 others 2009 SCR 185 (D)
  59. The powers of review are limited and are different from the powers vested in appellate jurisdiction — Review cannot be allowed to re-open the case for the purpose of affording an opportunity of rehearing. Ch. Zahid Hussain v. Khalid Iqbal & 3 others 2009 SCR 192 (A) 2003 SCR 66, 1999 SCR 323, 2000 SCR 564, 1999 SCR 343 and 2005 SCR 361 ref.
  60. Review — Point of laches — The point decided by the Court one way or the other cannot be reheard or allowed to be agitated in review jurisdiction. Ch. Zahid H. v. Khalid Iqbal 2009 SCR 192 (B)
  61. R. 15 — 2nd Schedule — Review — Simple applications — No clerical or arithmetical error has been point out — No affidavit was filed in support of the applications — Held: Applications for review were not competent. Talat Yasmeen v. Samina Rashid and 4 others 2009 SCR 333 (F)
  62. Review — It was incumbent upon the Tribunal to admit the review petition for regular hearing and issue a notice to the other party in respect of admission of petition and a date of hearing has to be fixed — Instead of admitting the review petition for regular hearing the Tribunal amended the order — Which offends the celebrated principle of natural justice, i.e., audi alteram partem. Talat Yasmeen v. Samina Rashid and 4 others 2009 SCR 333 (G)
  63. Scope of review is very limited and quite different from that of appeal — A case cannot be re-opened only on the ground that another interpretation of law is possible. Ch. Zahid Hussain v. Khalid Iqbal & 3 others 2009 SCR 192 (C)
  64. Vide judgment recorded on 27.3.2009, while accepting the appeal, official functionaries of Mirpur Development Authority were directed to allot residential plot to appellant — Petitioner filed the  application for review of judgment that if it is presumed that petitioner was a subsequent allottee, his allotment could be cancelled by competent authority and not by the Estate Officer — The learned counsel for private respondent conceded that allotment could not be cancelled by Estate Officer of Development Authority Mirpur — Review petition admitted for regular hearing and while suspending the operation of Supreme Court Rules — Judgment dated 27.3.2009 recalled — Appeal restored. Ch. Muhammad Latif  v. Azad Govt. & 5 others 2009 SCR 522 (A)
  65. Order XLVI of Supreme Court Rules read with Order XLVII, rule 1 of CPC — Scope of Review — Remedy by way of review petition is different from the one that of appeal. The scope of review is limited. Under Order XLVI of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978, the Court may review its judgment or order in civil proceedings on grounds similar to those mentioned in Order XLVII, rule 1 of CPC .Order XLVII, rule 1 of CPC postulates that if there is any error apparent on the face of record or there is clerical or arithmetical mistake in an order or judgment, the Court may review the same. Mst. Nasreen Gulab v. Mst. Tasleem Akhtar & 4 others 2010 SCR 375 (A) 2009 SCR 192, 1997 SCR 185 and 1996 SCR 317 ref.
  66. Powers of review are very limited which are confined only to the extent of errors apparent on the face of record. Sabir Hussain & others v. Muhammad Taj and others 2010 SCR 65 (A)
  67. Reappraisal of facts — The petitioners wants reappraisal of facts which is not permissible in review jurisdiction. Mst. Nasreen Gulab v. Mst. Tasleem Akhtar & 4 others 2010 SCR 375 (B)
  68. Sufficient reason — Documentary evidence — Important cogent documentary evidence is not discussed in the judgment under review, rather the judgment is totally silent in this regard which proves that this cogent evidence remained unattended — Held: It depicts that the material evidence was not considered and appreciated while delivering the judgment under review, therefore, this is another sufficient reason for acceptance of instant review petition. Haji Nazir Ahmad v. Raja M.  Saeed and others 2010 SCR 231 (H) PLD 2003 SC 724, 1995 SCMR 922 and 2000 CLC 962 rel.
  69. What is an error apparent on the face of record, cannot be defined precisely or exhaustively — O.XLVII, R.1 CPC covers both, a case of review on grounds of mistake or error of fact as well as of law provided it is apparent on the face of record — An error apparent on the face of record should appear either in the order itself or in any other document—It must be an evident error, which does not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. Sabir Hussain & others v. Muhammad Taj and others 2010 SCR 65 (B)           
  70. Scope of Review — Rehearing and re-opening of case not permissible — The bare reading of the grounds of review petition leads to the conclusion that the applicants want re-opening and re-hearing of the case. Held: It is consistent practice of the Court that re hearing and re-opening of a case is out of the scope of review. Further held: The review is only competent when there is an error apparent on the face of record. Azad Govt. v. Shakoor Bashir 2011 SCR 228 (A) 2009 SCR 192 rel.
  71. Scope of review — Limited — In the review petition the petitioners have attempted for rehearing of the appeal on some new grounds which have not been raised even in the appeal. Held: It is consistent view of this Court that the scope of review is limited which doesn’t permit for rehearing of the case. Shahida Iftikhar & 3 others v. Shabana Mumtaz & 2 others 2011 SCR 273 (C)
  72. Scope of review — The petitioners want a different conclusion, one of their own choice and a new result to the effect that appeal before the Service Tribunal was time barred, which, held: is not permissible in review jurisdiction. Malik Zafar Ali Awan v. M. Riaz Khan 2011 SCR 96 (A)
  73. Scope and jurisdiction — Grounds. Held: The court may review its judgment on the ground of an error apparent on the face of record or in civil proceeding on or any ground similar to those mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1, of the Civil Procedure Code — This Court in a number of cases has held that the review is not permissible on the ground that a party is not satisfied from the judgment or wants a different conclusion than the one reached by the Court. Malik Zafar Ali Awan & 3 others v. Muhammad Riaz Khan & 7 others 2011 SCR 96 (B)
  74. Scope — The petitioner wants the decision from this Court of her own choice which is not permissible under law. The petitioner wants a new order on facts which, held: is not permissible in review jurisdiction. Syeda Tasneem Kazmi v. Education Deptt. & 8 others 2011 SCR 155 (A)
  75. Power of Supreme Court — Scope — The scope of review is very limited and although Supreme Court has ample power to review its judgments but the same can only be exercised within the parameters of the provisions of Order XLVI of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978 read with Section 42-A of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974. M. Farid Shahzad, Project Manager v. AJK Govt. 2013 SCR 346 (A)
  76. Although a wrong decision is no ground for review but all the same if it is found that the decision of a Court is patently against the law of land, the judgment can be corrected in exercise of review jurisdiction because the policy of law is to administer justice  according to law and not in violation of the same — Proposition. M. Saleem Khan v. Mst. Muqarab Jan 2013 SCR  777 (B)
  77. Exercise of power — Scope — The review cannot be granted on the ground that a party interprets the law in a different manner or a party is not satisfied from the judgment of the Court or a different view is possible — The remedy by way of a review petition is different from the one by way of appeal — A party cannot be allowed to re-agitate the whole case in the guise of review petition. [Muhammad Saleem Khan v. Mst. Muqarab Jan and 2 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 777 (C)
  78. Its scope and maintainability — review powers of High Court — non-consideration of a previous binding decision in the judgment under review — argument that there was an error apparent therefore review was not justifiable — the review petition has been accepted as it is an appeal while interpreting law in a different manner — the review petition has a limited scope. The review petition is maintainable on the ground of an error apparent on the face of record.  The review petition is not maintainable on the ground that a different conclusion is possible but, held: review is permissible if a previous binding decision was not considered. Failure of notice a previous binding decision constitutes a valid ground for review. Raja Mohammad Arif Khan & another v. Regional HR Chief NBP and 3 others 2014 SCR 564 (C) PLJ 1991 SC (AJ&K) 26 and 1989 CLC 2402 ref.
  79. It is not an absolute rule that after implementation of the judgment the review cannot be sought, but for review of a judgment under law an error apparent on the face of the record must be pointed out. Secretary AJ&K Council v Muhammad Munir Raja& others 2015 SCR 474 (B)
  80. Scope of Review—It has been consistent practice of law and this Court that a point which has been argued, discussed and decided, shall not be opened to review. Kamran Hafeez v. Gul Zaman Khan & others 2015 SCR 1505 (C) Imtiaz Ahmed Abbasi vs. Syed Shabbir Shah Gillani & others (Civil Review Petition No. 24 of  2013, decided on 20. 2. 2014) rel.
  81. It is universal principle of law that review is not available until and unless it is not conferred by law. The constitution confers power on Supreme Court subject to the provisions of any Act of the Parliament and any rules made by the Supreme Court to review any judgment pronounced or any order made by it. However, same cannot be allowed in routine and argued like appeal until some new and important matter or evidence is discovered after passing of judgment, decree or order, which after exercising of due diligence was not in the knowledge of the petitioner and could not be produced at the time of making judgment, decree or order. Dr. Javed Akhter Rathore v. Dr.Abdul Khalid & 3 others 2016 SCR 1634 (C)
  82. For the review three preconditions are essential. Dr. Javed Akhter Rathore v. Dr.Abdul Khalid & 3 others 2016 SCR 1634 (D)
  83. When there is neither any mistake or error apparent on the face of record nor discovery of a new and important matter or evidence is shown which is sina qua non for exercise of review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Dr. Javed Akhter Rathore v. Dr. A. Khalid & others 2016 SCR 1634 (E)
  84. —Powers of Court— Powers of review are different from the powers of appeal—Review petition cannot be heard and entertained as it is an appeal from the judgment of the same Court— Review is not permissible for re-hearing the whole case as an appeal. Muhammad Ibrahim v. Azad Govt. & others 2017 SCR 153 (B) 2015 SCR 1505 ref.
  85. —Supreme Court may review its judgment on the ground of an error apparent on the face of record or any other ground similar to those mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1, of the C.P.C.,  but  the  review  is not  permissible  on  the  ground  that  a  party  is not  satisfied  from  the  judgment. Rabia Bashir v. Azad Govt. & others 2017 SCR 452 (B)  Abdul Karim v. Sain & others (Civil review No.26 of 2016 decided on 16.01.2017) rel.
  86.  —section 15—‘haraabah’—section 17(4) sentence for offence—Argument: the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Act 1985—being special law—overrides general law—section 17(4)— no sentence except  death or life imprisonment can be awarded—Courts wrongly sentenced under section 396 APC—important aspect escaped the notice of Court—error apparent on face of record—Held: convicts were awarded sentence under section 396 APC— argument repelled—The convicts were not awarded punishment under Section 17 (4) of Act 1985, rather they were punished under section 396.  Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard, without having any substance is hereby repelled. Sairan Bibi & others v. Muhammad Javed & others 2017 SCR 1334 (B)
  87. —The point which has already been properly appreciated and resolved cannot be reopened in review petition merely on the ground that it is not according to the wishes and expectation of a party. Muhammad Munir Raja vs Chairman AJ&K Council& others 2018 SCR 48 (A)
  88. —Discovery of new important matters or evidence can be a valid ground for review. Muhammad Munir Raja vs Chairman AJ&K Council& others 2018 SCR 48 (D)
  89. —against minority opinion/judgment. See Muhammad Munir Raja vs Chairman AJ&K Council& others 2018 SCR 48 (F & E)
  90. —Second review—against ex-parte        order—maintainability—inherent         powers—this     Court has already concluded that no second review is competent against the order of the custodian passed in review but facts of the case in hand are slightly different. The custodian passed the order ex-parte—in a review petition—The second review was filed against the ex-parte order, therefore, held: facts of the case make a room for departure from the view taken in the above referred case. Further held: even otherwise; the Court has inherent jurisdiction to convert one set of proceedings into another for the ends of justice and the second review filed can be treated as application for setting aside the ex-parte order and we accordingly held. Khushi Muhammad vs Mohammad Saddique & others 2018 SCR 342 (A)
  91. —On the point that some ground which was argued is notmentioned in the judgment. Held: that hardly furnishes the ground for review of the judgment. Further held: that in review petition a case cannot be re-opened because the same cannot be heard like an appeal. It is a consistent practice of this Court that rehearing and reopening of a case has not been allowed. Further held: the review is only competent when there is an error apparent on the face of record. Faheem Ahmed Khan vs Azad Govt. & others 2018 SCR 1273 (A)
  92. — ordinarily in review a case cannot be reopened where the points taken up by a party have already been discussed in depth and decided after taking into consideration the entire record–However, where a defect in the judgment sought to be reviewed is found flouting from the surface of the record and important aspect of the case if escaped the notice of the Court, then the Court has got ample powers to review its judgment for removing the defect. Raja Khalid Mehmood  Khan & others  v. Muhammad Hussain & another 2019 SCR 649 (A)
  93. —Power of review by the authority— Held: can only be exercised where it has been specifically granted/conferred by a statute and not otherwise. Shoukat Hussain Mughal  v. Azad Govt. & others 2019 SCR 656 (C) 1986 SCMR 965, 1987 SCMR 899, PLJ 1983 SC (AJK) 27.
  94. —Power of review by the authority— the power exercised by the authority was quasi-judicial in nature and in such circumstances after passing the order the authority cannot review the same. Shoukat Hussain Mughal  v. Azad Govt. & others 2019 SCR 656 (E)
  95.  —Scope of maintainability—no error of mistake apparent on face of record pointed out—rather in shape of review, the petitioner attempted to file an appeal for rehearing & reopening of matter, which is out of scope of review and permissible— M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi v. Raja Waseem Younis & 6 others 2020 SCR 1 (A)
  96.                   —maintainability        of—after       implementation       of       the
  97. judgment/order, the review may be refused— M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi v. Raja Waseem Younis & 6 others 2020 SCR 1 (F)
  98.  —a review by its very nature is not an appeal or a rehearing merely on the ground that either party conceives himself to be dissatisfied with the conclusion reached at by the Court– Azad Govt. & 8 others V. Barrister Adnan Nawaz Khan & 46 others 2020 SCR 591 (A).
  99.  —only an aggrieved person can seek review of the judgment— Azad Govt. & 8 others V. Barrister Adnan Nawaz Khan & 46 others 2020 SCR 591 (C)
  100.  —maintainability of—the private petitioner should have filed independent review petition as being private persons they cannot be associated with the Govt. for filing the petition, hence, review not maintainable— Azad Govt. & 8 others V. Barrister Adnan Nawaz Khan & 46 others 2020 SCR 591 (F).
  101. —Maintainability of—review petition can only be filed by an aggrieved person. Government of Pakistan  Versus Yasir Bashir & 12 thers 2021 SCR 1 (A)
  102. —Maintainability of— petitioner was under obligation to satisfy that there is any error or mistake apparent on the face of record from which the petitioner has become aggrieved.Government of Pakistan  Versus Yasir Bashir & 12 thers 2021 SCR 1 (C)
  103. —Scope of— a review petition is competent only if there is a mistake apparent on the face of record—the findings given in appeal or petition after considering the relevant material on record would not justify review— review cannot be treated at par with an appeal —the points finally resolved cannot be re-opened—the review is not permissible on the ground that a party is not satisfied from the judgment—the points which have been argued, discussed and decided shall not be opened for review. Safeeda Kousar Versus Rizwana Bibi & 5 others 2021 SCR 427 (A&B)
  104. — A view formed by interpretation of law and elucidation of facts would not be deemed to be wrong simply for the reason that a view contrary to it, could also be taken or it was possible to be taken. Kamran Ali & 3 others Versus Abdul Qudoos & 9 others 2021 SCR 501 (C) 2005 SCR 364 ref.
  105.  — Review is not permissible on the ground that a party interprets law in a different manner or a party is not satisfied from the judgment of the Court or a different view is possible. Kamran Ali & 3 others Versus Abdul Qudoos & 9 others 2021 SCR 501 (D)
  106. —Exercise of powers by Supreme Court. See  M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi  v. Raja Waseem Younas & other 2022 SCR 1 (A)
  107. —-Scope of review—a possible contrary view may not be a cause  for  review  of  opinion  formed—-a  view  formed  by interpretation of law and elucidation of facts would not be deemed to be wrong simply for the reason that a view contrary to it could also be taken or it was possible to be taken. Kh.Shabir Ahmed & others v. Development Authority & others 2022 SCR 1032 (B) 2005 SCR 364 rel.
  108. —Scope of review—review permissible only if glaring omission or patent mistake crept in earlier decision of Court— Error must be apparent on the face of record, leading to miscarriage of justice. Kh.Shabir Ahmed & others v. Development Authority & others 2022 SCR 1032 (C)
  109. —Scope of—Held: a review is not warranted merely because the conclusion drawn is wrong or erroneous but is limited to eventualities where something obvious has been overlooked or where there is a glaring omission or patent mistake of fact or law, which is self-evident, manifest and floating on the surface, materially affecting the outcome of the adjudicatory process. Muhammad Aslam v. Muhammad Farooq & others 2022 SCR 1373 (A)                  
  110. —It is consistent view of this Court that review cannot be obtained on the ground that the Court has taken an erroneous view or that another view on reconsideration is possible. Review also cannot be allowed on the ground of discovery of some new material, if such material was available at the time of hearing of appeal or petition but not produced—Further held: a ground not urged or raised at the time of hearing of petition or appeal cannot be allowed to be raised in review proceedings and only such error in the judgment/order would justify review, which is self-evident, floating on the surface of record or discoverable without much deliberation and have a material bearing on the final result of the case. Muhammad Tahir Khan v. Board of Revenue & others 2022 SCR 1656 (A)               
  111.   — scope of — points already resolved, cannot be reopened only on the ground that according to estimation of petitioner another interpretation of law is possible — jurisdiction vested in the Court for review of judgment is very limited and quite different from that of appeal — the Court may review its judgment on the ground of an error apparent on the face of record. Fiyaz Haider Nawabi v. Azad Govt. & others 2023 SCR 128 (C)
error: Content is protected !!