Find a Lawyer

Civil Review No. 15 of 1972, decided on 23rd November 1972.

Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI‑Review‑Failure of counsel to appear on date fixed for hearing‑No ground for review .

Gul Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 23rd November 1972.

This is t: petition for the review of a judgment of this Court delivered on the 13th of June 1972, in Civil Appeal No. 292 of 1970. The review is sought on the ground that the petitioner had never had the opportunity to show that the lands abandoned by her in India were not held by her as a limited heir, under custom, of her deceased husband. All the Courts below had proceeded on the basis of the Full Bench judgment of the High Court, in the case of Sher Muhammad v. The Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (P L D 1969 Lah. 234) and held that Mst. Bhuri had acquired absolute title in the evacuee lands allotted to her in Pakistan even if she was a limited owner in India.

It is claimed on her behalf that the lands which she had left behind in India were not the lands of her deceased husband Mir Baz but lands which she had inedited from her own father and, therefore, sloe could not be treated as a limited owner of the lands nor could the collaterals of her deceased husband claim any right in these lands. She had come over to Pakistan as full owner of the lands and, therefore, she was entitled to be treated as such, even in respect of the evacuee lands allotted to her in Pakistan.

It has, in the first place to be pointed out that when the collaterals of Mir Baz applied fur a mutation in respect of a 3/4th share of the lands allotted to her in the District of Multan after the coming Into force of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1962, she did not oppose the application, even though she was present at the jalsa‑e‑aam.

Next it has to be pointed out that, at the hearing of the appeal in this Court, the learned counsel wanted a day's time to produce the evidence in support of the petitioners' contention that the lands abandoned by her in India were those which she had inherited from her father and not from her deceased husband. This time was granted to him, but on the next day, when the appeal was called on, the learned counsel did not appear. His Advocate‑on‑Record wanted to file a concise statement but this was refused, as the time for doing so had long since expired. Then the said learned Advocate went to fetch his learned counsel but he too did not return. The Court waited for over twenty minutes and then, when no one appeared, the Court treated the arguments as closed and delivered its judgment on the 13th of June 1972.

In this view of the matter, the review can certainly not be granted for bringing in such evidence now, for, by doing so, we would be putting a premium upon the negligence of counsel. The failure of the counsel to appear at the adjourned hearing of the appeal, after the date was fixed at his request and in his presence, cannot be a ground for review.

There is, however, another circumstance which seems to have escaped the notice of the Court, namely, that the petitioner Mst. Bhuri is still alive and, therefore, her limited estate has not come to an end. It will come to an end only on her death when the succession will reopen and the heirs of her husband will be entitl ed to claim their legitimate share. The order of this Court will, therefore, be modified only to this extent that the mutation ordered by the Assistant Collector of a three‑fourth share in the lands allotted to Mst. Bhuri in village Akilpur, No. 133/10‑R, Tehsil Khanewal, District Multan, will take effect from the date of her death.

If she has transferred her lands in the meantime to petitioner No. 2 for valuable consideration, the petitioner No. 2 will be entitled only to a one‑fourth share in the lands after the death of Mst. Bhuri, but his possession will not be disturbed during the life time of Mst. Bhuri.

With this modification, the petition for review is dismissed.

Orders accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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