Find a Lawyer

Civil Review Petition No. 42‑R .of 1977, decided on 19th December, 1978.

(On review from the order of this Court dated 14‑9‑1977 in Civil Petition No.937/1976).

---Art. 188‑Review‑Order under review not appearing to have been vitiated by any error on face of record nor any other good and sufficient reason given for review of order‑Petition for review dismissed.‑[Review].

M. Perwaiz Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 19th December, 1978.

‑Admittedly, the house in dispute situated on Plot No. B‑555, Satellite Town, Rawalpindi, belonged to the respondent herein but according to the petitioner the respondent had sold the same to him through his attorney Muhammad Ashraf for Rs. 13,274. He, therefore, brought a suit against the respondent in the Civil Court for a declaration of his title in that behalf. But the trial Court dismissed his suit and the decree was affirmed on his appeal rejected by the District Judge. He also failed in his second appeal against the judgment and decree which was dismissed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court at Lahore on the 9th of July, 1976. His Civil Petition for special leave to appeal was likewise rejected by this Court on the 14th of September, 1977.

The petitioner has now filed this petition for a review of the order by which we had refused to grant the special leave to appeal. The main issue arising out of the pleadings of the parties in the suit is reproduced below:‑

"Whether the defendant sold the suit house through Muhammad Ashraf, his alleged attorney, to the plaintiff "

After going through the evidence the two Courts below had concurred in holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove this issue that Muhammad Ashraf was a duly appointed attorney of the defendant. This finding was even affirmed in regular second appeal dismissed by the High Court on the 9th of July, 1976 and on going through the facts and circumstances of tire case we too had declined to interfere with the judgment and decree of the three Courts on the findings of fact thus recorded by them. It does not appear that our order under review was vitiated by any error on the face of the record or that there are any other good and sufficient reasons for us to review that order. We therefore, find no good ground to entertain this petition for review which is hereby dismissed.

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.