Find a Lawyer

Civil Review Petition No. K‑7 of 1982, decided on 8th January, 1983.

(On appeal from the judgment of this Court, dated 25th April, 1982 passed in Civil Appeal No. K‑97 of 1981).

‑‑‑Art. 188 read with Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O. XXVI‑Review Questions already considered and disposed of in judgment of appeal Held, cannot be reagitated in review.

Khalid M. Ishaq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Shafiq Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Sharaf Faridi, Advocate Supreme Court and Yousaf Rafi Advocate‑on- Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 8th January, 1983.

This is a petition for review of judgment of this Court dated 25‑4‑1982, by which Civil Appeal No. K‑97 of 1981 was allowed and the judgment of a learned single Judge‑ of the Baluchistan High Court, dated 4‑10‑1981 was set aside.

2. The proceedings that ended with the judgment of the High Court dated 4‑10‑1981, arose out of a suit filed by the appellants, namely Syed Niamat Ali and others against the present petitioners on 19‑3‑1972 in the Court of Deputy Commissioner, Karachi. This suit was referred to the court of the Qazi at Lehari. The present petitioners in their written statement had set up a counterclaim, seeking a decree for possession of the disputed lands. The learned Qazi dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation and also rejected the counter claim as not maintainable under Order VIII, rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Although Syed Niamat Ali and ‑ others did not file an appeal against the said judgment, the present petitioners took an appeal before the Majlis‑e‑Shoora, Kalat Division, who dismissed the appeal as per their judgment dated 10‑3‑1980. The' petitioners then challenged the said judgment in a revision before the High Court of Baluchistan, which was accepted on 4‑10‑1981 and the High Court granted the petitioners a decree for possession of the lands in dispute. Against this judgment of the High Court this Court allowed the appeal as per judgment dated 25‑4‑1982, which is being sought to be reviewed.

3. We have heard Mr. Khalid Ishaq at length in support of the peti tioner and Mr. Sharaf Faridi on behalf of the appellants (respondents herein). After hearing the learned counsel we find that the arguments advanced merely seek to reagitate questions already considered and disposed of in the judgment of the appeal under consideration. Even otherwise there is no other ground made out justifying the review of the judgment which bas considered the contentions raised in support of the appeal and disposed on the same.

4. In the result there is no substance in this petition which is accordingly 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.