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. 43‑R of 1985, decided on 5th March, 1986.
(On review from the Judgment of this Court, dated 12‑9‑1985, in Civil Appeal 28‑P/84).
‑‑Art. 188‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI, r. 1‑‑Review, grounds for‑‑Point not having been raised in appeal, petitioner, held, not entitled to re‑argue same matter at review stage‑‑Petition dismissed.
Mian M. Younis Shah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
S. Safdar Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 5th March, 1986.
‑By this petition review of this Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 28‑P of 1984, dated 12th September, 1985, has been sought.
2. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the documents on the basis of which this Court held that a fresh period of limitation accrued to the plaintiffs under section 19 of the Limitation Act, were not signed as required by that provision of law. On a perusal of the judgment, however, we find that in support of the plea of acknowledgment, reliance was placed on two memos dated 18th December, 1959 and 22nd April, 1960, issued by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, as a result of which mutation was effected in the revenue record admitting that the Government was claiming only mortgagee's rights. Apparently as the evacuee's rights in land vested in the Central Government and were administered by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, it was held that the latter acted as the agent for the Government. The effect was that memos issued by him were binding on the Government as acknowledgment in writing. Apparently these memos were issued under the signature of the Chief Land Commissioner. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention advanced.
3. In any case as expressly observed in the judgment the question of sufficiency of this evidence as acknowledgment of liability was not raised on behalf of the respondents in the appeal (the present petitioner). The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to re‑argue the same matter at review stage.
4. After hearing the learned counsel at length we find no substance in this review petition which is accordingly 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