Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 114---Partition Act (IV of 1893), S.2---Review of ---Scope---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction maintained concurrent s of two courts below whereby suit property was finally partitioned---Contentions of petitioner were that provisions of S.2 of Partition Act, 1893, and statement of Local Commissioner were not taken into consideration---Validity---Exercise of review jurisdiction did not mean re-hearing of matter and as finality was attached to the order, a decision, even though it was erroneous per se, would not be a ground to justify its review---In keeping with the limits of review jurisdiction, it 'was futile to re-consider submissions which converge merits of the decision---Before an error could be a ground for review, it was necessary that it must be one which was apparent on the face of record---Error must be so manifest and so clear that no court could permit such error to remain on the record---It might be an error of fact or of law but it must be an error which was self-evident and floating on the surface and did not require any elaborate discussion or process of ratiocination---If court had taken a conscious and deliberate decision on a point of law or fact while disposing of a petition or an appeal, review of such or order could not be obtained on the grounds that court took an erroneous view or that another view on reconsideration was possible---Review also could not 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---Contentions of petitioner, in the present case, were nothing but reiteration of the same grounds, which were .urged at the hearing of revision petition but were rejected by High Court after consideration---High Court did not allow to raise the contentions again in review proceedings in the garb of proceedings for review---Petitioner could not obtain re-hearing of his revision petition---Review petition was dismissed in circumstances. Mian Rafiq Saigol and another v. Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd. And another PLD 1997 SC 865 ref. Sh. Mehdi Hassan v.…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492