Law:

Section:

Supreme Court Rule, 1956-- O. XXVIReview.Production of additional evidence cannot be permitted for reviewing previous order. ORDER ANWARUL HAQ, J. This petition seeks a review of the order made by us on the 19th of February 1974 dismissing C. P. S. L. A. No. 158 of 1972. While doing so, we observed that we were in agreement with the view taken by the majority of the learned Judges in the High Court that the registration of the sale sought to be preempted by the -Petitioner, was not fraudulently concealed from him by the vendors or the vendees, with the result that the -Petitioner was not entitled to invoke the aid of section 18 of the Limitation Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the -Petitioner that an important piece of evidence, namely, a certified copy of the saledeed in question, was omitted from consideration by the High Court, otherwise it would have shown that the -Petitioner had come to know of the sale only on or about the 22nd of June 1963, when the certified copy was applied for through one Munshi Barkat Ali, who had been instructed in this behalf by the -Petitioner's uncle Karam. At the Bar, an affidavit said to have been sworn by Munshi Barkat Ali was also produced and a request was made that it be placed on the record and read as a part of the evidence. All this effort has been made by the -Petitioner to get over the effect of the…

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