SIKDER BROTHERS Vs. CHAIRMAN, POWER DEVELOPMENT BOARD, WAPDA BHABAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1500 of 2006 has been filed against the order dated August 23, 2006 of the High Court Division rejecting the application filed seeking review of the judgment and order dated May 9, 2006 and May10, 2006 passed in First Miscellaneous Appeal No.100 of 2005 dismissing the same. The First Miscellaneous Appeal was filed against the judgment and order dated March 3, 2005 of the Court of District Judge, Dhaka in Arbitration Miscellaneous Case No. 240 of 2004 filed under Section 12 of the Arbitration Act, 2001.The Arbitration Miscellaneous case was dismissed by the Court of District Judge. As against the said order of the Court of District Judge the petitioner filed First Miscellaneous Appeal No.100 of 2005. The High Court Division by a detailed and reasoned judgment as mentioned hereinbefore dismissed the appeal. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application seeking review of the judgment passed in First Miscellaneous Appeal No. 100 of 2005 and same was numbered as Civil Order No. 784 (FM) of 2006 (review). The High Court Division dismissed the said application upon observing that no ground for review of the judgment dated May 9 and 10 of 2006 passed in First Miscellaneous Appeal No. 100 of 2005 could be made out by the petitioner. The High Court Division has observed "A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error......A review can only lie if one of the grounds in rule 1 of Order 47 is made out, when the petitioner of a review fails to show any of such of grounds, his review petition can not be allowed. The power of review in not an inherent power. It must be conferred by the law either specifically or by necessary implication. Yet it must be remembered that power of review inheres in every Court to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. In the instant case no such glaring omission or patent mistake or grave error has been crept up from the impugned judgment and order. Moreover the appellant petitioner has totally failed to show any of such grounds to uphold his Review petition. .. The appellant petitioner failed to bring any important matter or to show any error apparent on the face of the record.

(2.) A review is permissible only when it is seen that there was an error apparent on the face of the record in recording the judgment and order under review. The judgment and order recorded by us does not appear to have suffered from any error which is apparent on the face of the record.

(3.) It may be mentioned although judgment in the First Miscellaneous Appeal was passed on 9th and 10th May, 2006 and the review application was rejected on August 23, 2006 the petitioner did not file any petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court Division in the First Miscellaneous Appeal and that only filed a petitioner for leave to appeal against the order rejecting the review application. On a second thought, as it appears, the petitioner filed petition for leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 9th and 10th May, 2006 passed in First Miscellaneous Appeal No. 100 of 2005 on February 19, 2007. In that state of the matter the office reported that the Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 188 of 2007 was barred by 285 days.