| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 3665 2016 SLD 3665 2016 MLD 1771 |
SHAHID WAHEED, JUSTICE AND SHAH KHAWAR, JUSTICE
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MST. RANI FAREEDA-
VS
. TAHIR SALEEM-
Law:
Section:
Mian Habib-ur-Rehman Ansari for Petitioner. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) --------- ----------S. 114 & O. XLVII, R. 1---------Review jurisdiction, invocation of---------Scope---------Applicant seeking review was bound to show an error apparent on the face of record---------Review jurisdiction could not be invoked as a matter of routine or to re-open a case which had already been decided and that too after conscious deliberation on a question of fact and law---------Applicant had failed to point out any error apparent on the face of record which was an important ingredient to invoke review jurisdiction---------Review petition was dismissed in limine. Raja Prithvi Chand Lal Choudhury v. Sukhraj Rai and others AIR 1941 Federal Court 1; M. Moosa v. Muhammad and others 1975 SCMR 115 and Muhammad Azam and another v. Collector of Customs (PREV.), Headquarter, Karachi and 3 others 2005 CLC 58 rel. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: SHAH KHAWAR, JUSTICE:---------------------------- This petition has been filed under Section 114 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C., seeking a review of the order dated 30.06.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber in Civil Revision No.813 of 2014. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent Tahir Saleem filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is in occupation of the disputed property as an owner and the petitioner Mst. Rani Fareeda was just Benamidar. The suit was decreed by the learned Civil Court on 06.05.2013, which was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Multan. During pendency of the appeal, the petitioner on 04.01.2014 moved an application under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. for production of additional evidence. The said documents were the receipts of deposit of amounts in favour of the Cantonment Board made by the petitioner in respect of House Tax regarding the disputed property from the year 1997 to 2014. It was averred that the said documents could not be placed along with the plaint as, being lady she was not aware of their importance and were found by the petitioner later from her house, and that the same were necessary to be admitted as…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492