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 MALIK versus MUHAMMAD GHALIB


No error on the face of the XXVI review record

1977 S C M R 499(1)

Present : Waheeduddin Ahmad, Muhammad Akram and Dorab Patel, JJ

ABDUL MALIK ETC.‑Petitioners

versus

MUHAMMAD GHALIB ETC.‑Respondents

Civil Review Petition No. 28‑R of 1976 in C. P. S. L. A. No. 562 of 1974, decided on 27th September 1977.

Supreme Court Rules, 1956‑

---O. XXVI‑Review‑No error on face of record‑Petitioner not referring to any additional evidence or any farts not within his knowledge‑Mere fact of Court having taken a wrong view of point urged by petitioner, held, no ground for interference in review.‑ [Review].

Raja Muhammad Muzuffar Khan Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Date of hearing : 27th September 1977.

ORDER

WAHEEDUDIN AHMAD, J.‑

This is an application for review of the Order of this Court dismissing the petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 562/74 dated 28‑5‑75.

The dispute between the parties is in respect of mortgagee rights in the land in dispute. A suit was filed on 28‑9‑57. It was held by the trial Court that Mota Khan, predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioner In 1954 had acknowledged the factum of mortgage The High Court has held this view to be correct and has maintained the decree‑ for redemption which was challenged by the petitioner in the above‑mentioned application for special leave to appeal.

Mr. Raja Mohd. Muzaffar Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the question whether the seal on the report of the Patwari was an acknowledgment or an attestation requires further consideration. He contended that the interpretation given by this Court on 28-5‑75 is erroneous.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that there is no error on the face of the record, nor the petitioner has referred to any additional evidence or any facts which were not within his knowledge in this petition. Mere fact that this Court has taken a wrong view of the point s urged by the petitioner is no ground to interfere in review. We do not consider this as a fit case for interference. The petition is dis missed.

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
best advocate from Kalam 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.