Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Review Petition No. 61 of 1967, decided on 24th October 1967.
(In the matter of review of this Court's order dated the 23rd June 1967, passed in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal‑No. 107 of 1967).
O. XXVI‑Review‑Point not raised before cannot be agitated for first time in review.
S. M. Masud, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Majid Hussain, Senior Attorney for Petitioner:
Nemo for Respondents,
Date of hearing: 24th October 1967.
On behalf of Mst. Sardar Begum, a petition for special leave to appeal from an order of the High Court, passed in writ jurisdiction, was presented to this Court, and dismissed on 23‑6‑1967. The petitioner now seeks review of that order.
It appears that the writ petition filed in the High Court on behalf of the petitioner, calling in question certain orders passed by the Settlement Authorities, was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on the 16th November 1965. A Letters Patent Appeal from that order was dismissed in limine on the 6th June 1966: The petitioner asked for review of the order of the Letters Patent Bench by a petition which was dismissed on the 9th January 1967 by the High Court. The petition for' special leave to appeal was directed only against this order passed on the review application. If the petitioner wanted to challenge the original order of the High Court, his petition would have been barred by 225 days, and there was no explanation furnished for the delay.
Apparently the Bench who heard the petition earlier in this Court, granted the indulgence to the petitioner to present argu ments on the merits of the case. It was found that even on the merits, there was no case in favour of the petitioner as the respondent was found to be an allottee, whereas no allotment existed in the petitioner's favour.
Mr. S. M. Masud, on behalf of the petitioner, has attempted to argue before us that apart from the question of being an allottee or not, the petitioner was entitled to succeed on the strength of her earlier possession of the premises in dispute, as compared to that of the respondent. This was however, not one of the grounds taken in the review application in the High Court, which was dismissed with the short observation that there was no ground for review. The point cannot be, for the first time, agitated in this Court, and that also in a review petition. The petition for special leave could as well have been f dismissed on the ground that prima facie there was nothing wrong with the order passed by the High Court rejecting the review petition.
No case has been made out for re-opening the case and the review petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer