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 Petitions Nos. 32‑R and 33‑R of 1976, decided on 15th May 1978.
(On review from the judgment and order of this Court, dated 1st June 1976, in Civil .Appeals Nos. 157, 161 of 1970 and 283 of 1970).
‑‑ O. XXVI ‑Review‑‑‑Factual finding of various settlement authorities on relevant aspect of matter‑ conflicting and point not appearing to have been argued before Supreme Court during hearing of appeals‑Factual controversy, aforesaid, held, can hardly be a ground to invoke review jurisdiction especially when point appearing to have been abandoned and not pressed during hearing of earlier appeals Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLVII, r. I. ‑(Review].
Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan instructed by Muhammad, Afzal Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan instructed by Muhammad Afzal Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 15th May 1978.
---(i) Civil Appeal No. 157 of 1970, titled Wahajuddin and Masood Ahmad v. Mist. Razia Begum etc. (ii) Civil Appeal No. 161 of 1970, titled Mehr Khan v. Mst. Razia Begum and another and (iii) Civil Appeal No. 283 of 1970, titled Mst. Razia Begum v. Wahajuddin and others were disposed of by a common judgment and order of this Court dated 1‑6‑1976 as a result whereof the first two appeals were dismissed but the third appeal was accepted in terms of the said order.
2. Wahajuddin and Masood Ahmad appellants in Civil Appeal No. 157 of 1970 have filed a Review Petition being Civil Review Petition No. 32‑R of 1976, whereas Meher Khan appellant in Civil Appeal No. 161 of 1970 has filed Civil Review Petition No. 33‑R of 1976 for review of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 1‑6‑1976. The present order will dispose of both these review petitions.
3. The petitioners claimed transfer of a portion of the house which was subject‑matter of dispute between the parties. In the earlier judgment and order of this Court, it was held, that the finding of the relevant Settlement Authorities that the house was indivisible could not be interfered with, with the result that the transfer of the whole house to Mst. Razia Begum was well maintained and perfectly justified. This finding still holds the field and nothing has been pointed out to persuade this Court to change the aforesaid factual finding in these review petitions. Learned counsel wanted to argue that one of the relevant orders in the case was of a Deputy Settlement Com missioner, who had, according to him, reviewed an order of his predecessor without obtaining a prior permission of his superior namely the Additional Settlement Commissioner and that this aspect of the matter escaped attention of this Court while examining the ultimate orders passed by the Settlement Authorities concerned. The factual finding of the various Settlement Authorities on this aspects matter was conflicting and it appears that the point was not argued before this Court during the hearing of the appeals and as such the aforesaid factual controversy can hardly be a ground to invoke review jurisdiction of this Court especially when it appears to have been abandoned and not pressed during the hearing of the earlier appeals. Learned counsel has not been able to make out any case or raise any ground within the provisions of Order XLVII rule 1, C. P. C., warranting any review. The petitions have no merit and are dismissed in limine.
Petitions dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer