| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 3002 2022 SLD 3002 2022 YLR 698 |
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Civil Review No. 40 of 2020, decided on 3rd August, 2021. Date of hearing: 3rd August, 2021. (In the matter of review of judgment of this Court dated 10.01.2019 in Civil Appeals Nos. 299 and 330 of 2018).
RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, C.J., KH. MUHAMMAD NASEEN AND RAZA ALI KHAN, JJ
Shahd Ali Awan, Advocate for Petitioner. Fayyaz Ahmed Janjua, Advocate for
Respondent No.1.
Civil Review No. 40 of 2020, decided on 3rd August, 2021. Date of hearing: 3rd August, 2021. (In the matter of review of judgment of this Court dated 10.01.2019 in Civil Appeals Nos. 299 and 330 of 2018).
RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, C.J., KH. MUHAMMAD NASEEN AND RAZA ALI KHAN, JJ
Shahd Ali Awan, Advocate for Petitioner. Fayyaz Ahmed Janjua, Advocate for
Respondent No.1.
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit-BaltistaN
VS
YASIR BASHIR and 12 others
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 114
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 114---Review---Aggrieved person---Scope---Review petition can only be filed by an aggrieved person---Aggrieved person is one whose rights are threatened or being denied or whose rights have been affected by a decision. Azad Government and others v. Barrister Adana Nawaz Khan and others 2020 SCR 591 rel. JUDGMENT RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, C.J.---In the matter pertaining to the execution of the decrees in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir passed by the Courts of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, this Court through the judgment under review passed on 10.01.2019, held that:- ‘The appreciation of this statutory provision clearly speaks that for execution of such decree reciprocal arrangements between the Governments of Pakistan and Azad Jammu and Kashmir are required and, in this context, the basic requirement is the declaration through a notification to be published in the official gazette by both the Governments according to the spirit of Explanation 2 of section 44A, C.P.C.’ The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid judgment after lapse of 693 days, whereas, the limitation for filing review petition has been prescribed as 30 days. 2. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to explain that how the Government is aggrieved of the impugned judgment; he stated that after thirteenth amendment the situation has changed, therefore, the findings recorded in the impugned judgment that reciprocal arrangements between the Government of Pakistan and Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir are required for execution of decree are liable to be reviewed. Regarding the point of limitation, he stated that the petitioner was not party in the case in which the impugned judgment was passed. The same recently came into the knowledge of the petitioner, hence, from the date of knowledge, the review petition is well within time. 3. Mr. Fayyaz Ahmed Janjua, Advocate, stated that the review petition is hopelessly time barred. The petitioner is not an aggrieved person, hence, this review petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. It may be stated here that the review petition can only be filed by an aggrieved person. An aggrieved person…
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