Case Details

Citation(s)
1958 SLG 19 1958 SLD 19 1958 PLD 201
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 48 of 1957, decided on 28th March 1958. dates of hearing: 3rd and 4th March 1958. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 27th April 1956, in Writ Petition Case No. 53 of 1956).
M. SHAHABUDDIN, A. C.J., A. R. CORNELIUS, MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND AMIRUDDIN AHMAD, JJ
Muhammad Shafi and M. Z. Kitchlew Advocates, Supreme Court, instructed by Nazir-ud-Din, Attorney.
Respondents Nos. 2 & 3 . Ex parte. Khurshid Hasan, Advocate, Supreme Court, instructed by Virasat Husain Naqvi Attorney

MUHAMMAD TUFAIL

VS

ABDUL GHAFOOR and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Pakistan Rehabilitation Ordinance (XIX of 1948), S. 13 (S) -Review-Of predecessor's order-Not competent. The words "his own order" in S. 13 (5), Pakistan Rehabilita­tion Ordinance (XIX of 1948), can only mean the order made by the reviewing officer, and for this reason alone it was not competent for such officer to review his predecessors' order. This express limitation is a salutary check and it was not the intention of the Legislature that -a refugee to whom some property had been allotted for his rehabilitation should constantly live in a state of uncertainty or at the mercy of the authorities who may succeed one another. (b) Pakistan Rehabilitation Ordinance (XIX of 1948), S. 13 (S) -Review-Scope of-Confined to correction of arithmetical or accidental mistakes due to human forgetfulness. The power to review could only be exercised for the specific purpose of "correcting any error or, supplying any omission" which appears on the surface of the record and could be detected without a further elaborate inquiry or investi­gation. This might apply to accidental or arithmetical mistakes due to human forgetfulness not involving a mental process of reasoning or the appreciation of any law or the facts already proved or admitted. Any other view would eliminate the real distinction between the exercise of powers on appeal where the entire subject-matter is open to re-assessment and re-decision by the higher authority, and on review, where the matter has already been finally decided and cannot be re-opened but for the very narrow object- of correcting some errors which had occurred in spite of intention to the contrary. Further, the removal of any error will not confer power of "review"; it must be of a character that without correcting it the rights to which the parties may be entitled, cannot be adjusted. Ordinance XIX of 1948, recognizes only one ground for review and that too where the reviewing officer himself was guilty of a mistake or a lapse. The discovery of new and important matter or evidence cannot furnish a valid reason for review under the Ordinance and to that extent the ambit within which the Civil P. C. countenances review, is much wider and in…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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