Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

ABDUL MAJID versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER


Question regarding interpretation of provisions in Supreme Court Rules, 1956, AXXVI Review Law. I request that another interpretation is possible. There is no scope for review.

1970 S C M R 34

Present : A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and S. A. Rahman, J

ABDUL MAJID‑Petitioner

versus

CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 6 OTHER---‑Respondents

Civil Review Petition No. 57 of 1966, decided on 23rd October 1967.

(In the matter of review of this Court's order, dated the 3rd May 1967, in Civil Appeal No. 84 of 1964).

Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI‑Review‑Question of interpretation of provision in enactment‑Mere plea that another interpretation possible‑No ground for review.

Fazl‑i‑Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masud Akhtar, Attorney for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 23rd October 1967.

JUDGMENT

S. A. RAHMAN, J.‑

Abdul Majid's appeal from an order of the High Court, by which his writ petition, calling in question the validity of certain orders of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Department, was dismissed, was heard by a Bench of three Judges of this Court, and dismissed by order dated the 3rd May 1967. This is a petition on his behalf for review of that judgment.

The main point urged by Mr. Fazl‑i‑Mahmood in support of the petition for review, is that the interpretation of the substantive part of section 2 (12) and the two provisos sub joined to that section, adopted by this Court, was erroneous. This point has been fully dealt with in the impugned order of this Court, and the contention raised merely amounts to a plea that another‑inter pretation of the relevant provisions was possible, and should have been adopted. This furnishes no ground for review.

The petition is 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.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
top advocates from Mian Chunnu lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.