Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

REHMAT KHAN versus SARDAR BIBI


Article 188 and the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1980, AXXVI The points raised in the revision petition had already proceeded after the hearing of the original petition and appeared through a court review, authorized, not qualified [Supreme Court review]

1983SCM R7

Present : Nasim Hasan Shah and M. S. H. Qureshi, JJ

REHMAT KHAN‑Petitioner

Versus

Mst. SARDAR BIBI AND OTHERS‑Respondents

Review Petition No. 26 of 1981, decided on 20th March, 1982.

(a) Settlement Scheme No. VIII‑

----Division of property‑Property in dispute divided in course of litiga tion into 9 units and each unit transferred to its respective occupant Petitioner, held, possessed no locus stands to question transfer of units not in his occupation.‑[Locus stands].

(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑

-----Art. 188 and Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O. XXVI‑Review‑Points raised in review application already advanced at hearing of original petition and attended to by court‑Review, held, not competent. [Review by Supreme Court].

Mian Saeedur Rehman Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Salah‑ud‑Din, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

  1. R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mehdi Khan Mehtab Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 20th March, 1982:

ORDER

M. S. H. QURESHI,

J.‑This is a petition seeking review of this Court's order dated .24‑2‑1981, whereby the petitioner's Civil Petition for grant of leave (No. 925 of .1975) had been dismissed. It is urged that the various portion of the property could not be transferred to the respondents as all of them had not filed form initially and that their forms filed under Settle ment Scheme No. VIII could not be entertained during the pendency of the litigation, nor could the said portions of the property be said to have become "available" for the purposes of that' Scheme while the dispute was on.

2. We are not satisfied that the petitioner has any case for review. The property had in the course of the litigation been divided into nine units and each unit had been transferred to its respective occupant. The petition had, therefore, no locus stands to question the transfer of units which had not been in his occupation. The points now raised had been advanced all the hearing of the Civil Petition and attended to by the Bench. The review petition is, therefore, 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.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
Pakistan, top advocate family court from Multan lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.