Case Details

Citation(s)
2008 SLG 1463 2008 SLD 1463 2008 SCMR 554
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Review Petition No.167 of 2007 in Civil Appeal No.1517 of 2005 and Civil Review Petition No.168 of 2007 in Civil Appeal No.1518 of 2005, decision dated: 15-01-2008
IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN AND MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JJ
Ch. Muhammad Rafique Warraich, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in both cases). Mehdi Khan Chohan, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent (in both cases)

MAJID MAHMOOD

VS

MUHAMMAD SHAFI

Law:

Section:

(a) Review----Scope---Case cannot be re-opened on merits in review---Scope of review is very limited and review petition is not maintainable on those points which have been decided one way or the other---Any dispute which has already been resolved cannot be reviewed. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art. 188---Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI, R.1---Review of Supreme Court ---Principles---Fact not considered---Effect---Petitioner sought review of the on the ground that while rendering , Supreme Court did not consider a fact---Validity---Exercise of review jurisdiction did not mean a re-hearing of the matter and as finality was attached to the order, a decision even though it was erroneous per se, would not be a ground to justify its review---In keeping with the limits of review jurisdiction, it was futile to reconsider the submissions, which converge on merits of the decision---Before an error could be a ground for review, it was necessary that it must be one which was apparent on the face of record---Error must be so manifest and so clear that no court could permit such an error to remain on record---Error might have been of fact or of law but it must be an error which was self-evident and floating on the surface and did not require any elaborate discussion or process of ratiocination---If court had taken a conscious and deliberate decision on a point of law or fact while disposing of a petition or an appeal, review of such or order could not be obtained on the ground that the court took an erroneous view or that another view on reconsideration was possible---Review also could not be allowed on the ground of discovery of some new material, if such material was available at the time of hearing of appeal or petition but not produced---Contentions of petitioner in the present case, were nothing but reiteration of the same grounds, which were urged at the hearing of appeal but were rejected by Supreme Court after consideration---Supreme Court did not allow the petitioner to raise the contentions again in review proceedings---Petitioner could not obtain rehearing of appeal in the garb of proceedings for review---Petition was dismissed. Allah Ditta and…
🔒
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