Case Details

Citation(s)
2009 SLG 263 2009 SLD 263 2009 SCMR 1364
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No.833 of 2008, decision dated: 18-06-2009. (On appeal from the judgment, dated 16-4-2008 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench passed in Review Application No.4-C of 1999)
M. JAVED BUTTAR, MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD AND SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, JJ
Malik Shahzad Ahmed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Gul Zarin Kiyani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court along with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents

MUMTAZ BAIG and otherss

VS

JAMAL DIN through Legal Heirs

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 185(3)

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art. 185(3)---Petition for leave to appeal---Limitation---Full-fledged contested litigation right from the lowest forum of Trial Court to the High Court was dealt with and decided by the Courts having jurisdiction in the matter, their adjudication of the matter thus could not be termed as void or without jurisdiction to overcome the question of limitation.---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art. 185(3)---Petition for leave to appeal---Limitation---While seeking leave to appeal against order refusing to review the main previous order, in fact the object of petitioner was to seek vacation of the said previous order which by efflux of time had become final---Fact that in review the Court further affirmed the said order was immaterial inasmuch as a refusal to review the same would not give a fresh period of limitation to challenge the same---When the previous order had become binding on the petitioners, they could not be allowed to bypass same by simply pleading that the present petition was against order refusing to review the same because while stating so their intention was to point out errors and mistakes in the basic order which was sought to be removed through a review application but which failed---Question, in the present petition, was not of lack of jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain review, but after entertaining it, refusing the same on the ground that no case for review on merits existed---Such a decision would essentially compel a suitor to challenge the previous order itself to point out the mistakes allegedly existing therein, which exercise obviously could not be resorted to if the period of limitation for challenging the main previous order had run out and because one could not do indirectly which could not be done directly---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art. 185(3)---Petition for leave to appeal---Limitation---Period spent for pursuing review petition was not liable to exclusion while reckoning the period of limitation for assailing the basic ---For all intents and purposes, object…
🔒
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