| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1962 SLG 7 1962 SLD 7 1962 PLD 335 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Review Petitions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of 1961, decision dated: 30th April 1962. dates of hearing : 7th and 8th December 1961
A. R. CORNELIUS, C, J., FAZLE-AKBAR, B. Z. KAIKAUS AND HAMOODUR RAHMAN, JJ
A. K. Brohi Senior Advocate Supreme Court (M. Sadiq and Khurshid Ahmad Advocates Supreme Court with him) instructed by M. A. Rahman Attorney for Petitioners. Abdul Haque Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Iftikhar-ud-Din Ahmad Attorney for
Respondent No
Civil Review Petitions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of 1961, decision dated: 30th April 1962. dates of hearing : 7th and 8th December 1961
A. R. CORNELIUS, C, J., FAZLE-AKBAR, B. Z. KAIKAUS AND HAMOODUR RAHMAN, JJ
A. K. Brohi Senior Advocate Supreme Court (M. Sadiq and Khurshid Ahmad Advocates Supreme Court with him) instructed by M. A. Rahman Attorney for Petitioners. Abdul Haque Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Iftikhar-ud-Din Ahmad Attorney for
Respondent No
LT. COL. NAWABZADA MUHAMMAD AMIR KHAN
VS
(1) THE CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI AND (2) PAKISTAN, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, RAWALPINDI AND C. R. P. Nos. 3 and 5 of 1961 LT. COL. A
Law: Estate Duty Act, 1950
Section: 59,58,61,70,57
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1956
Section: 161,163(3)
Constitution of Pakistan (1956)------Art. 161-Review petition-Admitted by Supreme Court to hearing to examine "scope and extent" of power. (aa) Constitution of Pakistan (1956)-----Art. 161 read with Art. 163 (3) -Review-Supreme Court's power of-Scope and extent-When to be exercised-Necessity of doing "complete justice" between parties-Extent of power-"Complete justice" not to be understood in "abstract or academic sense"-Existence of "substantial Injury" essential before power can be used to remedy same-Violation of written law must be clear- Difference to "mode of interpretation"-Does not call for exercise of power Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLVII, r. 1. Per Cornelius, C. J.------In subsection (3) of Article 163, the late Constitution has provided a sufficient indication, notwithstanding that it is couched in wide terms, of the full extent of the power of review contemplated by the late Constitution . . . . The emphasis should be laid upon the consideration that, for the doing of "complete justice", the Supreme Court is vested with full power, and there is no reason why the exercise of that full power should be applicable only in respect of a matter coming up before the Supreme Court in the form of a decision by a High Court or some subordinate Court. "I can see no reason why that purpose, in its full scope, should not also be applicable for the purpose of reviewing a delivered by the Supreme Court itself : provided that there be found a necessity within the meaning of the expression "complete justice" to exercise that power. It must, of course, be borne in mind that by assumption, every pronounced by the Court is a considered and solemn decision on all points arising out of the case, and further that every reason compels towards the grant of finality in favour of such s delivered by a Court which sits at the apex of the judicial system. Again, the expression "complete justice" is clearly not to be understood in any abstract or academic sense. So much is clear from the provision in Article 163 (3) that a written order is to be necessary for the purpose of carrying out the intention to dispense "complete justice". There must be a substantial or…
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