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 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 424 of 1974, decided on 11th November 1974.
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, dated the 2nd April 1974, in Civil Miscellaneous No. 2 of 1974 in Writ Petition No. 794‑R of 1972).
----Art. 194‑Writ‑Impugned application on examination found by High Court to have overwritings regarding different dates in application and such overwritings being not explained reasonably, High Court finding application not to be genuine -Supreme Court's own examination of application confirming High Court's view‑Petition, held, rightly dismissed by High Court.
Maraj‑ud‑Din Chaudhury, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing s 11th November 1974.
‑The petitioners have become aggrieved by the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissing the formers' review petition.
It appears that the petitioners for the first time put in an application addressed by Rehmat Ali to the Officer‑in‑Charge Central Record Office in support of the review petition. The said application led to a report by the Naib Tehsildar that the area of Anwar Ali Shah, predecessor of the petitioners, bad been verified against the claim Form No. 2 1 77. This was relied on by tire petitioners to show that there was no justification on the part of the Chief Settlement Commissioner for cancelling the allotment on claim form No. 2177 on the ground of fraud and false representation.
Furthermore the learned Single Judge on an examination of the said application found that there were overwritings regarding different dates in the application and no reasonable explanation was given for the over writings. The learned Judge, therefore, observed that the application was not a genuine one.
We summoned the application and have ourselves examined it. We agree with the learned Single Judge that the application does contain the overwritings.
In these circumstances no fault can be found with the High Court for dismissing the review petition.
The contention that the High Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in the matter appears to be misconceived.
The petition is accordingly 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