Law:

Section:

(a) Supreme Court Rules, 1956--- O. XXVIReviewPlea that judgment of Supreme Court being silent about direction to first appellate Court for disposal of appeal lodged by -Petitioner needed reviewSupreme Court not in any manner having interfered with remand order made by High Court, ground urged for review, held, misconceived. (b) Supreme Court Rules, 1956 __ O. XXVIReview Supreme Court only dealing with maintain­ability of suit and saying nothing on merits of case, contention that its judgment is likely to be misconstrued in -Respondent's favour, held, misconceived. ORDER ANWARUL HAQ, J. This petition seeks review of the judgment of this Court dated the 7th of November 1973, whereby Civil' Appeal No. 190 of 1969 was dismissed. The learned Advocate-on-Record as well as the counsel for the -Petitioner are both absent, even though notice for the hearing of this petition had been sent to the learned Advocate-on-Record in accordance with the rules of the Court. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Even on merits, we do not find any substance in this petition. The grounds urged for review are as follows : (a) That the judgment of this Court is silent about the directions to the first appellate Court for the disposal of the appeal lodged by the -Petitioner in that Court ; and (b) That the judgment dated 7111973 is likely to be misconstrued in favour of the -Respondent as one amounting to a total acceptance of -Respondent's claim resulting in an executable decree for possession of the land in suit in favour of the -Respondent. In second appeal, the High Court had merely decided the question whether the sale in favour of the -Petitioner was preemptible or not in…

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