1. The petitioner/respondent in CIA No. 108/2016, through the medium of the instant review petition, seeks review of final judgment of this Court dated 8th of November, 2017, passed in CIA No. 108/2016, operative portion whereof reads as under:

“In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned Judgment and decree is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Civil Court for deciding the civil suit of respondent-plaintiff afresh in accordance with law. Parties shall appear before the Court below on 13.11.2017. Any amount deposited on account of Judgment and decree passed by the civil Court before this Court or civil Court shall stand released in favour of the appellants.”

2. Mr. Qayoom, the learned counsel for the review petitioner/respondent in the appeal, submits that the appeal filed by the appellants/respondents herein was not maintainable in view of the fact that the appellants had challenged the judgment and decree as well as the order passed in execution petition by medium of an appeal. In that backdrop, the learned counsel contends that the Court has, thus, passed the impugned judgment in an appeal which was, in fact, no appeal in the eyes of law. The learned counsel further submits that the Court has condoned the delay in filing the appeal mainly on the concession made by the counsel for the appellants/respondents herein before the Court, without noticing the fact that the counsel had made the concession on a point of law and fact without any authority of law, as such, there is a manifest error in the judgment under review. Mr. Qayoom, the learned counsel, has further proceeded to state that it was quite evident before the Court that there was a clear admission made by the appellants/respondents herein before the trial Court, through their written statement and statement recorded under Order 10 CPC, regarding the admission of the claim of the review petitioner, but the Court, in terms of the judgment under review, proceeded on a wrong premise and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. It is also pleaded that the judgments relied upon by the review petitioner before the Court have not been taken into consideration, while passing the judgment under review.

3. Heard Mr. Qayoom, the learned counsel for the review petitioner, perused the record and considered the matter.

4. What requires to be stated, at the outset, is that in the instant review petition, the review petitioner has touched the merits of the case, which, in a review petition, is unwarranted as per well settled position of law. The grounds urged in the review petition have already been decided and findings returned thereon by the Court and, if the review petitioner was aggrieved of the said findings, he ought to have availed the remedy under law for challenging the same in appropriate Court. In fact, the instant review petition, on grounds enumerated therein, appears to be a disguised appeal. The grounds taken by the review petitioner are either that the findings recorded by the Court are not legally tenable, or that the same are perverse, or that the same are unacceptable. A judgment may be wrong, erroneous, incorrect, perverse, legally untenable, etc. etc., but, the only course available for the aggrieved party is to go in appeal the said judgment. Such grounds do not constitute errors of fact or of law on the face of the record as would call for a review.

5. A review cannot also be used as a tool for changing the opinion/view of the Court. In a review petition, it is only an error, apparent on the face of the record, which can be considered and gone into by the Court. It is not open to the Court, dealing with review of its decision, to re-appreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible. Conclusion arrived at, on appreciation of evidence and after hearing the rival parties, cannot be assailed in a review petition, unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record