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 Petition No.22‑R of 1977 in C.P.S.L.A No. 924 of 1974, decided on 4th November, 1980.
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI, r.1‑‑Grounds for review‑‑Plea not raised before Supreme Court earlier cannot furnish any ground for review‑‑Review petition being devoid of merits and merely an attempt to re‑argue petition for leave to appeal, dismissed.
A.R. Sheikh, Senior Advocate, Sh. Islamul Haq, Advocate and Rana M.A. Qadri,
Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing 4th November, 1980.
‑‑ By our order, dated 11‑2‑1977 we had dismissed the petition for leave filed by the petitioners against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing their writ petition Hence this review application.
The dispute in the review application relates to lard of which particulars have been given in the review petition, and according to Mr. A. R. Sheikh, the land was allotted to the petitioners against the claim of their father, Rehmatullah, who is now dead. The first respondent before Rao Ashfaq Ali Khan filed a belated appeal against this allotment, the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, Sargodha, on the ground that he had a prior claim for obtaining an allotment in the area concerned. And, according to the order of Rao Ashfaq Ali Khan, the appeal was allowed on the basis of a compromise between the parties. The petitioners challenged this order in a revision and denied the allegation that they had entered into a compromise and this submission was accepted by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (who heard the revision) by his order, dated 21‑1‑1963, However, this does not alter the fact that Rao Ashfaq Ali Khan as well as the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner held that the dispute between the parties had been compromised after an examination of the evidence Therefore, we reaffirm our view that the High Court rightly held that the petitioners could not repudiate the agreement made by them before Rao Ashfaq Ali Khan on 1‑3‑1961.
Mr. A.R. Sheikh then stated that Rao Ashfaq Ali Khan had passed the order of allotment in favour of the petitioners, therefore, he was not competent to hear an appeal against it. This plea was not raised before us on 11‑2‑1977 and in any case this objection was not pleaded before Rao Ashfaq Ali Khan, therefore, it cannot possibly furnish any ground for a review.
Mr. A.R. Sheikh's only other submission was that the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, who dismissed the second revision filed by the petitioners on 16‑4‑1966 was inimical to the petitioners. We cannot examine this plea, because it had not been raised before us on 11‑2‑1977.
The review petition is without merit and is merely an attempt to re‑argue the petition for leave; it is, therefore, dismissed.
M. I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer