Find a Lawyer

Review Petitions Nos. 5 and 6 of 1985, decided on 1st June, 1985.

(From the order, dated 23rd August, 1984 of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, passed in Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. 883 and 884 of 1981).

‑‑Art. 188‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O. XXVI, r. 1‑‑Review‑ Grounds for‑‑Error pointed out in High Court order nothing more than a mis-description‑‑Point neither taken in petition for leave to appeal nor argued during its hearing‑‑No case made out for review‑ ‑Petition dismissed.

Sh. Ghias Muhammad, Advocate instructed by Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) with Rashid Murtaza Qureshi, Advocate for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 1st June, 1985.

‑In these two petitions filed fur review of this Court's order, dated 23‑8‑1984 dismissing Civil Petitions Nos. 883 and 884 of 1981, it is urged that the High Court had mistaken Mutation No. 1077 sanctioned on 15th May, 1964 to be mutation of the sale in question but the said mutation was in fact of inheritance and not of the sale. Learned counsel points out that the sale mutation was No. 1107 sanctioned on 31st July, 1964 and urges that the error which occurred in the High Court had been carried forward to this Court.1 No such point had been taken in the Petitions for Leave to Appeal nor argued before this Court during the hearing of those petitions. So far this Court is concerned, the sale mutation had been correctly noted as being No. 1107 sanctioned on 31st July, 1964. In any case nothing turns on it because the error in the order of the High Court is nothing more than a mis-description.

2. After hearing learned counsel we feel satisfied that no case is made out for review. The petitions are dismissed.

M.I. Petitions 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.