Case Details

Citation(s)
2002 SLG 1404 2002 SLD 1404 2002 SCMR 1336
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.481-L of 1999, decision dated: 29-04-2002. (On appeal from order of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 25-2-1999 passed in Review Application No.29 of 1999)
RANA BHAGWANDAS AND FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, JJ
Muhammad Sharif Khokhar, Advocate Supreme Court and MehmoodulIslam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner M. Rashid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jaffri, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN

VS

LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XLVII, R.1---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.185(3) & 199--­Review petition against passed in Constitutional petition by the High Court---Petitioner filed Constitutional petition through AKM, Advocate, which was argued by SH, Advocate for MKK, Advocate and was decided on merits---Petitioner sought review of on the ground that he was out of country at relevant time; that his case was not properly argued; and that he did not engage MKK, Advocate---High Court dismissed the review petition---Validity---Petitioner had not denied his signatures on power attorney of MKK, Advocate---Petitioner had neither initiated any action against said counsel for alleged unauthorised representation nor explained the absence of AKM, Advocate, through whom Constitutional petition had been filed---Strong presumption of correctness and sanctity of high order was attached to judicial proceedings---Supreme Court directed. - petitioner to submit his original passport for verification of material dates on which he claimed his absence from Pakistan, over which he produced his British Passport reflecting that he landed in Pakistan on 22-12-1999, but in spite of having a bunch of British and Pakistani Passports, he could not produce other Passport to show that he was away from country on 6-3-1996, which was the date on power of attorney filed by his counsel---No substance in petitioner's plea that his case had not been argued properly nor such plea could be a ground for review of final ---Scope of review was restricted to some mistake or error apparent on the face of record, discovery of new or important matter or evidence, which despite due diligence was not within the knowledge of petitioner, when order was passed or for any other sufficient reason---None of such grounds was made out in the case with necessary corollary that Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused to grant leave to appeal. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XLVII, R.1---Review---Scope---Scope of review was restricted to some mistake or error apparent on the face of record, discovery of new or important matter or evidence, which, despite due…
🔒
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