Find a Lawyer

Civil Review Petition No. 29 of 1968, decided on 11th October 1968.

(On review from the judgment of this Court in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 171 of 1968, passed on the 30th May 1968).

Art. 62‑Review‑Cannot be granted for consideration of fresh evidence which could, with due diligence, have been placed before Court at time of original rearing.

M. Pervaiz Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. B. Khizar Tamimi, Attorney for Petitioners.

Zainul Abidin, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masood Akhtar, Attorney for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.

Date of hearing : 11th October 1968.

This is a petition for the review of an order of this Court dismissing Civil Petition No. 171 of 1968.

The review is sought on the ground that this Court had been misled into dismissing the petition by reason of a confusion created in the Courts below with regard to the question as to whether the residential portion of Killas Nos. 9 and 10 were ever allotted to the respondents herein.

Up to now this case had throughout proceeded on the basis that the residential portion which was included in the allotment of the respondents was agricultural land within Killas Nos. 7 to 11 of Square No. 39 which had been allotted to the respondents. Indeed this, was the portion which, it was alleged, was at one stage declared to be a potential building site but that order was set aside in Writ Petition No. 2090‑R of 1963 by the High Court of West Pakistan. Then the respondents applied for the eviction of the petitioners from this portion and the petitioners ultimately compromised those proceedings by attorn ing as tenants to the respondents. It was in this view of the matter that it was held that it was no longer open to the petition ers to reagitate that question.

The petitioners however, now seek to set up a new case that the residential portion was actually situated in Killas Nos. 9/1 and 10/2 and was not, at any stage, allotted to the respondents. According to the petitioners the respondents were allotted only 25 Kanals from Killas Nos. 7 to 11‑but this did not include the residential portion in Killas Nos. 9/1 and 10/2, because, by the inclusion of this portion the area would be increased to 40 Knnals.

Apart from the fact that this is an entirely new case which vas never raised at any earlier, stage, we ‑are unable to agree that there was any confusion in the mind of this Court on this particular question. This Court was fully conscious of the fact that the petitioners were even in the petition for special leave to appeal, contending that the residential portion had not been allotted to the respondents. Nevertheless, it upheld the view of the High Court that this contention of the petitioners was wrong after consideration: of the arguments then advanced before the Court, It cannot, therefore, be said that this Court left out of consideration any relevant or important evidence placed before it or that the new evidence is such that it would have materially affected its decision.

Review cannot be granted for the consideration of fresh evidence which could, with the exercise of due diligence, have been placed before the Court at the time of the original hearing. If the respondents were allottees of agricultural lands in Killas Nos. 7 to 11 and the residential portions had been held by the High Court in an earlier writ petition to be a part of those agricultural lands, then it is difficult to appreciate how a portion situated in Killas Nos. 9 and 10 can be considered to have been excluded from the allotment of the respondents.

This petition is, in our view, without any substance and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.