2020 C L C 1934
[Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail and Nazeer Ahmed Langove, JJ
NIZAM UD DIN ----Applicant
Versus
SENIOR VICE -PRESIDENT AND REGIONAL MANAGER OPERATION and
another ----Respondents
Review Application No.07 of 2016 in C.P. No.416 of 2014, decided on 27th December,
2019.
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---
----S.114 & O. XLVII, R. 1 ---Review of a judgment ---Scope ---Review was permissible when
conditions contained in O.XLVII of C.P.C. had been fulfilled, not otherwise ---Facts alleged
by the applicant and documents relied upon were available on record at the time when
impugned judgment was passed ---Petitioner had failed to point out any apparent error or
mistake in the impugned judgment ---Purpose of review was to enable the Cour t for
correction of error alone and nothing else ---Review could not be equated with an appeal or it
could not be made basis for rehearing of the case ---Power of the Court to review its judgment
or order was discretionary and it could be exercised to preven t injustice from being done ---
Review did not amount to rehearing the case on merits and case could not be re -opened on
pretext of review ---Review petition having no merit was dismissed, in circumstances.
Hussain Bakhsh v. Settlement Commissioner PLD 1970 [sic:] 1; Fatima v. Shah
Muhammad PLD 1975 SC 318 and Faqir Muhammad Khan v. Akbar Shah PLD 1973 [sic]
110 rel.
Azam Jan Zarkoon for Applicant.
Muhammad Riaz Ahmed for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 10th December, 2019.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD KAMRAN KHAN MUL AKHAIL, J. ----This review application
under Section 114, C.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 23rd September,
2015 passed in C.P. No.416 of 2014, which was dismissed in limine by this Court mainly on
the ground of limitation. Now the applic ant/petitioner seeks review of the same on the
ground that the judgment passed by this Court is liable to be reviewed, because the trial court
has dismissed the grievance petition of the applicant in non - prosecution, which was
amenable under Article 180 o f the Limitation Act, but inadvertently the petitioner
approached the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The instant review application is also
accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of
delay.
2. Heard. Record perused .
3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the each and
every material aspect of the case, the judgment rendered by this Court prudently and
judiciously contains the reasons, which prevailed over this Court for dismissing the
constitutional petition in limine, therefore, relevant observations therefrom are reproduced
here under:
"4. We have heard the learned counsel at reasonable length and also gone through the
record of the case. The perusal of order passed by the trial court reveals that the
grievance petition was received on 04.04.2011, when notices were issued to the
parties. After service of notices on 19.11.2011 issues were framed and case was
adjourned for evidence of the petitioner, thereafter the case remained pe nding for
reasonable long time and on 16.05.2013, a final opportunity for production of
evidence was granted subject to fine of Rs.3000/ -. On 29.05.2013 again the
opportunity was afforded subject to fine of Rs.2,000/ - and on 10.07.2013 again
opportunity wa s sought when another counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner and
filed an application for additional evidence. The said application was withdrawn on
19.08.2013 and again opportunity for production of evidence was granted subject to
Rs.2000/ -. The ord er-sheets maintained by the trial court show that despite availing
numerous opportunities, the petitioner has miserably failed to lead the evidence,
therefore, finally vide order dated 12.09.2013 the grievance petition was dismissed
due to non -interest and for non -prosecution. The petitioner assailed the impugned
order in Revision Petition under Section 55 of the IRA, 2010 which appeal too was
dismissed vide judgment dated 2nd April, 2014.
------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. It is by now well settled that the question of limitation being question of law had to
be construed rigidly because beyo nd specific period of limitation valuable right
accrues in favour of the opponent and if the condonation is not specifically explained,
the courts/judicial form lack the jurisdiction on expiry of prescribed period. The
jurisdiction of courts/judicial forum s are always subject to limitation and when a
particular law contemplates to do any act under the law within specific periods and in
case of expiry of that period, the law has to be construed rigidly and party normally
losses his right for redressal of his grievance, and since the law favour only that
person who remain vigilant for redressal of his grievance and in case of any negligent
he cannot be allowed to circumvent the provision of law.
The concurrent findings of fact rendered by the two forums below cannot be disturbed
under the constitutional jurisdiction, therefore, the petition being devoid of merit is
dismissed in limine.
4. Irrespective of maintainability of the instant application, the perusal of record shows
that show -cause notice to the petitioner/applicant was issued on 14.02.2004, reply whereof
was filed on 26.02.2005, again second show -cause notice was issued to the petitioner on
26.10.2005, the reply whereof was submitted on 1 9.11.2005, and finally vide office order
dated 25.01.2007 the petitioner was dismissed from service, the grievance notice was
submitted on 02.03.2007 and thereafter the grievance petition was submitted before the 4th
Labour Court Balochistan, Gawadar at Tu rbat on 27.04.2007, which was dismissed vide
order dated 31.10.2009 and said order was set aside by the Member Labour Appellate
Tribunal vide judgment dated 16.03.2011 and case was remanded to the trial court for its
adjudication on merits. The order sheet maintained by the trial court shows that after remand
of the case to the trial court, the case remained pending from 04.04.2011 to 16.05.2013, but
on failure of the petitioner to produce the evidence, again his grievance petition was
dismissed on 12.09.20 13. Against dismissal of the trial court, the revision petition was filed
by the petitioner before the appellate tribunal on 17.12.2013, therefore, the learned tribunal
vide judgment dated 2.4.2014 while dismissing the revision observed that the revision w as
barred by time and thereafter the petitioner filed a constitutional petition before this court in
the month of June, 2014, which remained pending and was finally dismissed vide judgment
dated 23.09.2015. The petitioner filed a C.M.A. No.309 of 2016 in F ebruary, 2016 for re -
hearing of the petition on limitation, but the application was dismissed as not pressed vide
order dated 21.04.2016 and thereafter the instant review application was filed on 06.05.2016.
The aforesaid dates clearly show that right from the beginning, neither the grievance notice
of the petitioner was within time nor his grievance petition, as well as the appeal before the
appellate tribunal was within time. Even, when the case was remanded by the learned
appellate tribunal vide judgment dated 16.03.2011, which was again received to the trial
court on 04.04.2011 and remained pending till 12.09.2013, when it was dismissed due to
failure of the petitioner to lead the evidence.
Suffice it to mention here that against the judgment dated 23.0 9.2015, the instant
review application was filed on 06.05.2016, which too was barred by eight (8) months. As it
was already observed in the main judgment dated 23.09.2015; -
"The jurisdiction of courts/judicial forums are always subject to limitation and when a
particular law contemplates to do any act under the law within specific periods and in
case of expiry of that period, the law has to be construed rigidly and party normally
losses his right for redressal of his grievance, and since the law favour on ly that
person who remain vigilant for redressal of his grievance and in case of any negligent
he cannot be allowed to circumvent the provision of law."
5. It may be observed here that the power and procedure of review jurisdiction are
governed by section 114 and Order XLVII of the C.P.C. and Rule I of Order XLVII provides
the scope of review jurisdiction. An application seeking review of the earlier order passed by
the court can only be entertained when applicant establishes that "on 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, on account of some apparent error or mistake, or for
any other sufficient reasons, may apply to the court which passed the order" . Thus, the
review is only permissible and maintainable provided the conditions stipulated in Order
XLVII are fulfilled and not otherwise. The facts now being alleged by the applicant and the
documents being relied upon were available on record at the time when the judgment in
question was passed. The applicant has miserably failed to point out any apparent error or
mistake in the judgment. It is well settled that the main purpose of power to review is, to
enable the court for corrections of error alone and nothing else. The review cannot be
equated with an appeal, or for that matter it can be made basis for rehearing of the case. The
power to review a court's own judgment/order is only discretionary and the reason for
conferring discretionary power of revie w to a court was to prevent injustice being done. A
review in no case should amount to rehearing the ease on merits and case cannot be re -
opened on pretext of review. Reference is made to 'Hussain Bakhsh v. Settlement
Commissioner', (PLD 1970) [sic:] 1; 'F atima v. Shah Muhammad' (PLD 1975 SC 318) and
'Faqir Muhammad Khan v. Akbar Shah' (PLD 1973 [sic] 110).
In view of above reasons, the review application is dismissed being bereft of any
merit.
ZC/122/Bal. Application dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.