Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 349 of 1978, decided on 29th October, 1983.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 13th March, 1978 passed in Review Application No. 5 of 1978).

‑‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 114‑Application for review of judgment of Division Bench of High Court sought on basis of freshly produced documents rejected by High Court on ground that petitioners bad failed to pursue their case with diligence to produce new material at earlier stages of litigation‑Order of High Court proceeding on well‑recognized principles governing exercise of review jurisdiction‑No good ground for interference with such order Leave to appeal refused.

Ch. Muhammad Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court with Rana Maqbool Ahmed Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 29th October, 1983.

This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against an order, dated 13‑3‑1978 whereby a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissed the review application filed by the petitioner praying that the order earlier passed by the learned Judges in Intra‑Court Appeal No. 80 of 1977 be reviewed.

2. The facts are that the petitioner No. 1 had succeeded in obtaining inheritance mutation attested in his name as a legal heir of one Jalal Din son of Badar Din, who had died in India and an entitlement certificate was issued in his name on a claim preferred allegedly by the said petitioner on behalf of the deceased claimant. The petitioner then sold the area confirmed in the name of Jalal Din to petitioner No. 2. Ultimately, however, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner cancelled the land from the name of the petitioners vide order, dated 26‑9‑1966 and allotted it to respondents Nos. 2 and others. On appeal of the petitioners the learned Additional Settlement Commis sioner (Lands) Gujranwala, restored the allotment of the petitioner as per. His order dated 23‑9‑1969. On revision preferred by respondents No. 2 and others, the matter was remanded by the Settlement Commissioner for examination under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Gujranwala. On remand after holding a detailed enquiry, the learned officer, inter alia held that claim holder Jalal Din 'son of Badar Din was a dead person not having come to Pakistan, the first petitioner filed the claim and ob tained allotment in the name of the deceased. It was further held that the petitioner had failed to prove that he is the lawful heir of the deceased and the Shajra Nasab relied upon by him did not show that he had any link with any common ancestor of the deceased so as to claim inheritance from him. In view of these findings all the allotments of land secured by the first petitioner in the name of deceased right holder were cancelled as having been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation of facts, vide order dated 23‑5‑1977.

3. The petitioners challenged this order in the Writ jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court but their Writ Petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge by judgment, dated 10‑7‑1977 on the ground that the finding of fact reached by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner was neither perverse nor in any manner contrary to law and, therefore, such a finding of fact was not open to question in the constitutional jurisdiction.

4. The Intra‑Court Appeal filed by the petitioner, the maintainability of which is open to serious doubt, was also dismissed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court on merits as per judgment dated 13‑12‑1977 holding that no satisfactory evidence was produced to show that the first petitioner was an heir of deceased Jalal Din son of Badar Din and in any case this was a finding of fact by a competent statutory forum.

5. The impugned order was passed on an application by the petitioner whereby review of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 13‑12‑197 was sought on the basis of certain freshly produced documents. However; the learned Judges found no ground justifying review as in their opinion the petitioners had not pursued their case with due diligence to produce the new material at earlier stages of litigation, in which, however, they ha failed and were, therefore, guilty of negligence.

6. After hearing the counsel we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Judges of the High Court and find that there is no good ground for interference with the impugned order or the High Court which proceeds on well‑recognized principles governing the exercise of review juris diction. The petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.

S. Q. 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.