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. 5 of 1967, decided on 23rd October 1967.
(In the matter of review of the order of this Court, dated the 3rd March 1966, in Civil Review Petition No. 14 of 1966).
Art. 62 and Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI‑Review‑Fresh evidence cannot be received by Supreme Court in review.
Petitioners in person.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 23rd October 1967.
‑The petitioners seek review of this Court's order of the 17th June 1966, itself passed on an application for review of an order of the Court dated the 3rd March 1966, dismissing their petition for leave to appeal against a decision of the High Court, refusing a writ to them in a Settlement matter. They wish the Court to receive in evidence, a copy of a pedigree‑table, which allegedly proves their connection with a proposition, against whose estate they claim land in Pakistan under the Settlement Scheme. Their claim had been rejected in Settlement, and the. High Court had refused to interfere in writ jurisdiction.
The petition for special leave was rejected on the ground that the final order in Settlement was not vitiated by any sub stantial defect. In the first review, the only point raised was as to the power of cancellation, and it was held that this existed. The allotment in their favour was vitiated by fraud.
Fresh evidence going to the truth or falsity of the original claim cannot be received by this Court, in second review. The petitioners may, if so advised, place the freshly procured evidence of pedigree before the proper, i.e. the Settlement authorities.
The petition is dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer