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. 33‑R and 34‑R of 1978 decided on 19th December, 1981.
(On review of the order of the Court dated 8‑5‑1978, in Civil Appeals Nos. 86 and 87 of 1971).
‑ XXVI‑Review jurisdiction‑Limited in nature‑Point raised in, review proceedings forming part of a contention urged at time of hearing of appeal and dealt with and a finding given‑Held, another attempt to reargue point hence not permissible.‑[Review by Supreme Court].
Muhammad Fazlur Rahman, Advocate and Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
‑This order will govern Civil Review Petitions Nos. 33‑R and 34‑R of 1978, arising out of Civil Appeals Nos. 86 and 87 of 1971 which were decided by a common judgment of this Court dated 8th of May, 1978.
Mr. Fazlur Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the reasoning for the conclusion reached therein, namely, that since the company in this case has been supplanted by the Custodian of Enemy Property for all purposes so long as the company remains an alien enemy, it cannot claim to be an aggrieved party so as to be able to insist that in the High Court the two petitions filed by it against the impugned orders were improperly dismissed and contends that in holding so this Court had over‑stepped the limits as the purport of the words "aggrieved party" in Article 98 of the erstwhile Constitution of .1962, was modified with reference to subordinate legislation such as section 83 of the Civil Procedure Code ; the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance, 1965 and the Enemy Property (Custody and Registration) Order, 1965 ; and that this can only be done by a Constitutional legislation. This submission forms part of the first contention urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, which was dealt with and a finding given. Therefore, this is another attempt to reargue the point which is not permissible having regard to the limited nature of the jurisdiction exercised.
Accordingly, both the petitions are without substance and are dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer