Find a Lawyer

Civil Review Petition No. 44-R of 1978, decided on 8th March, 1981.

----Art. 188 read with Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI, r. I-- Review-Review sought on ground of petitioners having not consented to arrangement suggested by their counsel at time of hearing writ petition in High Court and accordingly they could not be bound by consent order made by High Court-Such point neither raised before High Court nor before Supreme Court at time of hearing of main petition Submission of such nature, held, does not furnish any justification for review of previous order.

Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate with Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on- Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of bearing: 8th, March, 1981.

This petition seeks a review of the order of this Court dated the 1st June, 1978, by which Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal Bearing No. 222 of 1978, was dismissed, mainly on the ground that the order made by the High Court was in the nature of a consent order, and, accordingly, the petitioners could not be permitted to re-open the matter. In coming to this conclusion special notice was taken of the observations made by the learned Judge in the High Court while dismissing the review application filed on behalf of the petitioners.

Review is sought on the ground that the petitioners has not consented to the arrangement suggested by their counsel at the time of the hearing of the writ petition in the High Court, and accordingly, they could not be bound by the consent order made by the learned Judge.

We notice that this point was not raised before the High Court, no before this Court at the time of hearing of the main petition. Such submission, accordingly, does not furnish any justification for review of our previous order.

The review petition, accordingly, fails and 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.