| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1969 SLG 286 1969 SLD 286 1969 SCMR 247 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Review Petition No. 1 of 1969, decided on 14th February 1969. (On review from the order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, dated the 10th October 1968, and the 14th December 1967, in Civil Review Petition No. 10 of 1968 and Civil Petition for Special
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C.J., SAJJAD AHMAD AND QADEERUDDIN AHMAD, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Review Petition No. 1 of 1969, decided on 14th February 1969. (On review from the order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, dated the 10th October 1968, and the 14th December 1967, in Civil Review Petition No. 10 of 1968 and Civil Petition for Special
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C.J., SAJJAD AHMAD AND QADEERUDDIN AHMAD, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Mst. GHULAM FATIMA
VS
THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND), LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS
Law:
Section:
Constitution of Pakistan (1962)---Art. 62 and Supreme Court Rules, 1956, 0. XXVI-Review-Cannot be granted merely for a re-hearing of matter-Second review petition not entertainable after amendment of Supreme Court Rules, 1956-Review petition now entertained only on grounds akin to those mentioned in 0. XLVII, C. P. C.-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLVIL Fazl-i-Mahmood Mian, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Siddiq, Senior Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing :14th February 1968. JUDGMENT HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-This is a review petition for the review of an order of this Court, passed on the 10th of October, 1968, dismissing a first review petition filed for the review of a judgment delivered by the Full Court on the 14th of December 1967. The last review petition was dismissed on the ground that "a review cannot be gt anted merely because one party of the other to the litigation is not satisfied with the decision of this Court and considers that the matter should be re-heard or re-argued. A review is not a substitute for an appeal." Learned counsel contends that this view offends against the provisions of Article e2 which do not place any limitation on the powers of this Court. Article 62 of the Constitution, however, is itself "subject to the provisions of any Act of the Central Legislature and of any Rules made by the Supreme Court." Rules have already been made in that behalf and it has repeatedly been held by this Court that a review cannot be granted merely for a re-hearing of a matter. In the of case Nawabzada Muhammad Amir Khan v. Controller of Estate Duty (PLD1962SC335) the majority view clearly was to the effect that "a decision of this Court should be re-opened with very great hesitation and only in very exceptional circumstances." Fazale-Akbar, J. opened that "the power of review should be exercised within the limits laid down in the case of Akber Ali v. Iftikhar Ali (P L D 1956 F C 5J) Kaikaus, J. observed that "the mere incorrectness of a conclusion reached can never be a ground for review." I myself in that case enunciated the principle that the power of review should only be exercised "consistently with…
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