Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Review Petition No. 22‑R of 1985, decided on 25th February, 1986.
(On review from the judgment of this Court, dated 16‑4‑1985 in C . A . 41‑P of 1975).
‑‑‑O. XXVI‑‑Review‑‑Petitioner claiming that there was an error of law on face of judgment in so far as Supreme Court, held, that High Court had no power to record additional evidence in revsional jurisdiction‑ Nothing existing in Supreme Court judgment to hold that High Court had no power to record additional evidence although it was held that in circumstances of case and for reasons mentioned in judgment High Court was not justified to record additional evidence‑‑Review petitioner attempting to reargue appeal‑‑Petition for review, held, was without merit and dismissed.
‑‑‑Justification for exercise of power or jurisdiction, held, was clearly different from having no power or jurisdiction to do's thing.
‑‑A n attempt to reargue appeal, held, not permissible at review stage.
S. M. Zaffar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Khan Bahadur Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Jalaluddin Khan, Advocate‑on -Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 25th February, 1986.
‑The main contention in support of this review petition is that there is an error of law on the face of the judgment in so far as this Court held that the High Court had no power to record additional evidence in revisional jurisdiction. Reference has been made to paragraph 14 of the judgment sought to be reviewed.
2. After hearing the learned counsel at some length we find no force in this contention. There is nothing in the judgment of this Court holding that the High Court had no power to record additional evidence, although it has been held that in the circumstances of this case and for reasons mentioned in the judgment the Court was not justified to record additional evidence. It is needless to emphasize that the justification for exercise of power or jurisdiction is clearly different from having no power or jurisdiction to do a thing. The other grounds' urged were merely an attempt to reargue the appeal which is not ill permissible at the review stage.
3. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this review petition which is accordingly dismissed.
M . Y . H . Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer