| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLG 2223 1992 SLD 2223 1992 PLJ 445 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Review Petition Nos. 119, 122, 123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,134,135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140. 141, 142 and 151 of 1991, dismissed on 24.3.1992. [For review of judgmet Dated 13.7.1991, passed by Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal. No. 1-P of 1990 and
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY AND AJMAL MIAN, JJ
Mr. Abdul Hakeem Klwn, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court, instructed by Mr. Ejaz Muhammad Khan, AOR for Petitioner (in C.R.P. Nos. 119 and 122 to 130 of 1991). Mr. S. Safdar Hussain, Advocate, Supreme Court, instructed by Mr. Ejaz Muhammad Khan, AOR for P
Civil Review Petition Nos. 119, 122, 123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,134,135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140. 141, 142 and 151 of 1991, dismissed on 24.3.1992. [For review of judgmet Dated 13.7.1991, passed by Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal. No. 1-P of 1990 and
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY AND AJMAL MIAN, JJ
Mr. Abdul Hakeem Klwn, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court, instructed by Mr. Ejaz Muhammad Khan, AOR for Petitioner (in C.R.P. Nos. 119 and 122 to 130 of 1991). Mr. S. Safdar Hussain, Advocate, Supreme Court, instructed by Mr. Ejaz Muhammad Khan, AOR for P
Sardar ABDUR RAUF KHAN and others
VS
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR, ABBOTTABAD and another --Respondents
Law:
Section:
(i) Condonation of Deluy-- —Supreme Court-Judgment of-Review of-Prayer for-Whether delay could be condoned without formal application for condonation of delay-Question of--Question of limitation was raised for first time during arguments-- Generally a request for condonation of delay is to be made through an application, but in a fit case. Supreme Court can condone delay even on oral request and there is no such prohibition in rule (2) of Order XII of Supreme Court Rules, 1980--In any case, question of condonation of delay was a matter of discretion—Held: Exercise of discretion cannot be reviewed through a review petition-Review petition dismissed. (ii) Review-- —Supreme Court—Judgment of—Review of—Prayer for—Whether court could treat petitions for leave to appeal as appeals-Question of--Held: It is well settled proposition of law that Supreme Court has discretion to treat a petition for leave to appeal as an appeal under clause (2) of Article 185 of Constitution. JUDGMENT Ajmal Mian, J.-By this common judgment we intend to dispose of the above 19 Review Petitions. 2. By the above Review Petitions, review is sought of the judgment dated 13.7.1991 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 1-P of 1990 and other connected Civil Appeals. The above Review Petitions were admitted to consider the question, whether a petition for leave to appeal under clause (3) of Article 185 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Constitution, was not competent when an appeal under clause (2) of the above Article was competent. 3. The facts giving rise to the above Review Petitions are, that Civil Appeals Nos. 1-P and 3-P to•8-P/1990, 4 to 11 of 1990, 27/1990, 46 to 48/1990, 724 to 727/1990, 235-P/1990 arid 236-P/199Q, were filed by the owners of the land whose land was acquired, hereinafter referred to as the owners of the land, whereas, Civil Appeals Nos. 115-P to 149-P/1990 were filed by the Government of N.W.F.P.,…
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