Find a Lawyer

Civil Review Petition No. 45‑R of 1977 in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 556 of 1976, decided on 7th October, 1979.

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

‑‑ Art. 188‑Review‑Re‑arguing case on merits as well as additional grounds‑Held beyond scope of review petition‑Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI,‑[Review].

Abdullah and 3 others v. Abdul Karim and others P L D 1968 S C 140 ; Maghi v. Narain and others 1914 P R 18 and Ram Nath and others v. Badri Narain and others I L R 19 All. 148 ref.

Ch. Muhammad Siddiq, Advocate and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on -Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 7th October, 1979.

.‑This petition seeks the review of the judgment of this Court, dated 7th November, 1977, on the ground that the judgment had proceeded on the misconceived assumption to the effect as if the petitioners had lost the right to redeem the suit property owing to the application of the doctrine of Sinker'. It is conceded by the learned counsel that on this question the trial Court, the learned District Judge and the High Court have concurrently held against him. But he nevertheless contended that Abdullah and 3 others v. Abdul Karim and others (P.L.D. 1968 S C 140) on which the learned District Judge had relied, and whose finding in that behalf was approved by the High Court, has not laid down the correct law and consequently the same required reconsideration by this Court. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has taken us through the said judgment of this Court and pointed out that in there reliance was made on two judgments, one reported as Maghi v. Narain and others (1914 P R 18) and another as Ram Nath and others v. Badri Narain and others (1 L R 19 All. 148). But the ratio of the latter judgment was misconceived as the law laid down therein was different than what it was assumed to be in the said judgment of this Court.

Now by going through the said judgment of the Allahabad High Court, there is no doubt that it supports the contention of the learned counsel, therefore, if the said judgment alone was found to be the basis for the said judgment of this Court leave to review the impugned judgment would have been readily granted to the petitioners. However, by going through P L D 1968 S C 140 what we have noticed is that after taking into consideration the evidence on record, the learned Judges of the Bench disposed of the appeal before them in view of the following finding, which appears at page 146 of the said judgment :‑

"The argument cannot, however, be accepted in the absence of any proof that payment of the price was made by the various vendees of this group in specified amounts. There can be no presumption as to the divisibility of the transaction merely on the bass of the recital in the deed that the vendees took the property in specified shares if the consideration was mentioned as a lumpsum."

Having recorded this finding. however, out of abundant caution it seems, the learned Judges proceeded to take notice of the above judgments of the Lahore and Allahabad High Court not to strengthen their said conclusion but only to show that there existed no divergence in that behalf between the superior Courts of the sub‑continent. It is true, and we say so with respect, that the ratio of the Allahabad judgment was mis‑conceived in the said judgment of this Court. But this would hardly suffice to lend support to the contention of the learned counsel that the law laid down therein is incorrect and so the said judgment required reconsideration. Furthermore the only ground, which was urged on behalf of the petitioners in the High Court was about the divisibility of their shares from the share of Allah Rakha, who was a complete stranger in the sense that he was not an owner in the patti, khewat or estate. But this contention was rightly repelled by the learned Judge on the ground that "It is no doubt true that the shares of the various vendees in the land were separately recited but the consideration was recorded to have been paid in a lump sum to the vendors. there being no mention about the individual contributions of each of the various vendees to the sale money".

In this view of the matter, it is evident that the learned counsel has tried to re‑argue the case on merit as well as additional grounds, which however, is beyond the scope of a review petition.

This petition, therefore, fails and is 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.