Review Jurisdictions under Article 105:

The power of Review of judgments or order by Appellate Division has been conferred upon the Appellate Division by Article 105 of the Constitution. In the case of Idris Ali Bhuiyan vs. Enamul Haque and others it was held that “It may be pointed out that the scope of review of our judgment is very limited. Review of a judgment can be made where there is an error apparent on the face of the record or that the attention of this Court was not drawn to any particular statutory provision of law for which an error has crept in the judgement.

There is no scope of re-hearing the matter by way of review as there is no scope of re hearing on a question of fact in a review petition already decided, because hearing a review petition is not re-hearing the appeal. In the case of Mahbubur Rahman Sikder and others vs. Mujibur Rahman Sikder and others the Appellate Division gave an elaborate observation about the review jurisdiction to the Appellate Division where it was held that – there is no controversy regarding the power of the Appellate Division to review its judgment. The power has been conferred by the Constitution which also provides how the exercise of this power will be regulated.

Article 105 provides that parliament may enact law as to how the power will be exercised or this Court make rule for its exercise. So far, no Act of Parliament has been passed as mentioned in the Article, the Court has not framed any rule, but has adopted the rules which were made under similar provisions for review in the Constitution of Pakistan, 1962. In practice, the Court also regards the provisions of Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. for the purpose of reviewing its judgment, though these provisions are not binding upon it. As a matter of practice and rule, the Appellate Division proceeds to review a Judgement pronounced earlier by it upon an application for review by an aggrieved party. Prior to hearing a review petition the Court has to be satisfied that the grounds for review as mentioned in Order XXVI of the Rules of the Supreme Court exists.

The Appellate Division has the power to review its judgment acting suo motu. In criminal proceedings review is maintainable on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. The application for review must be filled within 30 days after pronouncement of the judgment or order by the Appellate Division.

A review is by no means an appeal disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected. A review lies when an error apparent on the face of the record exists. It is not a rehearing of the main appeal. Review is not intended to empower the Court to correct a mistaken view of law, if any, taken in the main judgment. It is only a clerical mistake or mistake apparent on the face of the record that can be corrected by the leave but it does not include the correction of any erroneous view of law taken by the Court.

Law for Nations has represented a number of civil & criminal review successfully.