ABDUL QADIR and 2 others---Petitioners Versus JAHANGIR KHAN and others---Respondents

Citation: 2022 SCMR 321

Result: Petition Dismissed
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
Date of Decision: 25/10/2021
Judge(s): Sardar Tariq Masood, Amin-ud-Din Khan and Muhammad Ali Mazhar, JJ
Case Number: Civil Petitions Nos. 181-Q to 184-Q of 2021
JUDGMENT

I. Introduction This legal judgment concerns a petition filed under

Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan,
1973, seeking leave to appeal against two judgments. The first judgment
pertains to the dismissal of a review petition (Review Petition No. 4 of
2021) in Civil Revision No. 330 of 2020. The second judgment is related to
the dismissal of the original civil revision petition (Civil Revision No. 330
of 2020).

II. Limitation Consideration The judgment begins by addressing the

issue of limitation for filing the petition. The court notes that the limitation
was calculated from the date when the review petition was dismissed,
which was May 6, 2021. However, the petition was filed on June 25, 2021,
making it time-barred by 30 days.

III. Rehearing and Merits The petitioner's counsel attempted to argue

the case's merits, primarily questioning the findings of the high court in
the order dated March 24, 2021, which dismissed the civil revision. The
court pointed out that the petitioners had opted to file a review petition
specifically against the dismissal of their revision petition. The court
highlighted that the review petition sought to rehear the entire case, but
the counsel failed to identify any specific points in the review petition that
fell within the ambit of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of
the C.P.C.

IV. Multiple Petitions The judgment addressed multiple petitions, each

linked to the same case. In the cases of delay, the court determined that
the petitions were barred due to delays ranging from 16 to 30 days.

V. Merger and Review Jurisdiction The court referred to the Supreme

Court of India's judgment in "DSR Steel (P) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and
others" to explain various scenarios regarding review petitions. The
judgment distinguished between cases where the review petition led to an
altered or reversed decree and cases where the review petition was
merely dismissed, affirming the original decree. In the latter scenario,
there is no merger of judgments.

VI. Finality of Revision Judgment The court emphasized that the

revision petition filed by the petitioners before the High Court had been
dismissed and had attained finality. Therefore, no petition for leave to
appeal was filed against the judgment in the revision petition within the
limitation period. The court concluded that there was no legal justification
for the review of the original judgment, as there were no grounds for
reviewing the judgment in the main revision.

VII. Dismissal of Petitions The court ultimately held that the petitioners
could not file a petition for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court when
their review petition had been dismissed without any modification to the
original judgment. The court found that the High Court had correctly
exercised its jurisdiction by dismissing the review petition. Leave was
refused, and all petitions were dismissed.

ORDER
AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---Through these petitions filed under Article
185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 leave has
been sought against the judgment dated 06.05.2021 passed in Review
Petition No. 4 of 2021 in Civil Revision No. 330 of 2020 whereby Review
Petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed, as well as judgment dated
24.3.2021 whereby Civil Revision Petition No. 330 of 2020 filed by the
petitioners was dismissed.
2. Office has calculated the limitation while taking into consideration
the one impugned order i.e. 6.5.2021 when the review petition filed by the
petitioners was dismissed. The instant petition was filed on 25.6.2021.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to argue the matter
on merits of the case i.e. to hit the findings recorded by the learned High
Court in its order dated 24.3.2021 whereby civil revision was dismissed.
He was sensitized that the petitioners opted to file a review petition
against the order of dismissal of their revision petition dated 24.03.2021
and the learned High Court has considered the matter keeping in view the
review jurisdiction and found that review petition is not competent.
Learned counsel was further asked to show us that which of the points
raised before the High Court under review jurisdiction come within the
ambit of parameter under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. for invoking
the review jurisdiction. Learned counsel failed to show us any point
pleaded in his review petition before the High Court whereby any reason
for invoking the jurisdiction of the Court for exercise of review jurisdiction
is permissible. We have noticed that all the points raised in review petition
before the High Court seem to be an attempt to seek rehearing of whole of
the matter. We have further observed that there are concurrent findings
of fact recorded by the three courts below; suit of the plaintiff- respondent
was decreed on 6.11.2018 and the decree of the learned trial court
challenged by the petitioners through an appeal before the learned first
appellate court was affirmed by dismissal of appeal then the Civil Revision
filed by the petitioners too was dismissed vide judgment dated
24.03.2021.
Now we consider whether after dismissal of review petition a party
is allowed to assail validity of both the orders i.e. order of dismissal of
review as well as dismissal of revision petition when against the order of
dismissal of revision petition the limitation for filing a petition for leave to
appeal expired long before filing of the instant petition on 25.6.2021.
4. We have gone through the record. Petitioner applied for issuance of
certified copy of order of dismissal of civil revision dated 24.3.2021
through application at Serial No.2798 on 5.6.2021, same day the copy was
prepared and same day i.e. on 5.6.2021 certified copy was issued. The
instant CPLA were filed on 25.6.2021. The time for filing a petition for
leave to appeal under Order XIII, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980
is sixty days thus the instant petition is barred by 30 days without any
explanation and application for condonation of delay. Likewise, in C.P.
No.182 of 2021 petitioner applied for certified copy of order of dismissal
of civil revision dated 24.3.2021 through application at Sr. No.3035 on
8.6.2021, the copy was prepared on 21.6.2021 and same was issued on
22.6.2021, therefore, C.P. No.182 of 2021 is barred by 16 days. In C.P.
No.183 of 2021 petitioner applied for certified copy of order of dismissal
of civil revision dated 24.3.2021 through application at Sr. No.3036 on
8.6.2021, the copy was prepared on 21.6.2021 and same was issued on
22.6.2021, therefore, C.P. No.183 of 2021 is also barred by 16 days and in
C.P. No.184 of 2021 petitioner applied for certified copy of order of
dismissal of civil revision dated 24.3.2021 through application at Sr.
No.3038 on 8.6.2021, the copy was prepared on 21.6.2021, therefore, C.P.
No.184 of 2021 is barred by 16 days. When review petition has simply
been dismissed without altering judgment of the revisional court no
question of merger of judgment of revisional court into the review
judgment.
5. We have gone through a judgment of the Indian Supreme Court
whereby point in issue in the instant matter before us has been dilated
upon. The Supreme Court of India in the case of "DSR Steel (P) Ltd. v.
State of Rajasthan and others" (2012 (2) CCC 88) aptly summarised
various situations that may arise with reference to review jurisdictions.
The Court observed:-
13. Different situations may arise in relation to review petitions filed
before a Court or Tribunal. One of the situations could be where the
review application is allowed, the decree or order passed by the Court or
Tribunal is vacated and the appeal/proceedings in which the same is made
are re-heard and a fresh decree or order passed in the same. It is manifest
that in such a situation the subsequent decree alone is appealable not
because it is an order in review but because it is a decree that is passed in
a proceeding after the earlier decree passed in the very same proceedings
has been vacated by the Court hearing the review petition. The second
situation that one can conceive of is where a Court or Tribunal makes an
order in a review petition by which the review petition is allowed and the
decree/order under review reversed or modified. Such an order shall then
be a composite order whereby the Court not only vacates the earlier
decree or order but simultaneous with such vacation of the earlier decree
or order, passes another decree or order or modifies the one made earlier.
The decree so vacated reversed or modified is then the decree that is
effective for purposes of a further appeal, if any, maintainable under law.
14. The third situation with which we are concerned in the instant
case is where the revision petition is filed before the Tribunal but the
Tribunal refuses to interfere with the decree or order earlier made. It
simply dismisses the review petition. The decree in such a case suffers
neither any reversal nor an alteration or modification. It is an order by
which the review petition is dismissed thereby affirming the decree or
order. In such a contingency there is no question of any merger and
anyone aggrieved by the decree or order of the Tribunal or Court shall
have to challenge within the time stipulated by law, the original decree
and not the order dismissing the review petition. Time taken by a party in
diligently pursuing the remedy by way of review may in appropriate cases
be excluded from consideration while condoning the delay in the filing of
the appeal, but such exclusion or condonation would not imply that there
is a merger of the original decree and the order dismissing the review
petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy as to why the
order dated 24.03.2021 passed in revision was not challenged before this
Court directly and instead after dismissal of review petition the orders
passed in civil revision as well as the review application were challenged.
Since the revision petition was dismissed by the learned High Court of
Balochistan against which no petition for leave to appeal was filed within
period of limitation before this Court as such the same attained the
finality. Moreover, there was also no legal justification left with the
petitioner to seek review of the above mentioned order when no ground
for review of a judgment was available with the petitioner against the
order passed in the main revision. Reliance can be placed upon
"Muhammad Ramzan v. Lahore Development Authority, Lahore (2002
SCMR 1336) and "Abdul Hakeem and others v. Khalid Wazir" (2003 SCMR
1501). Now in our view the petitioners cannot file a petition for leave to
appeal in this Court when their review petition has been dismissed
without any modification to the original judgment passed in the Revision
Petition except to the extent of legality of exercise of review jurisdiction.
We hold that the learned High Court has rightly exercised jurisdiction by
dismissing the review petition. In this view of the matter, learned counsel
failed to make out a case for grant of leave. Leave is refused and all these
petitions stand dismissed.