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. 30‑R of 1984 in Civil Appeal No. 294 of 1976, decided on 3rd December, 1985.
‑‑‑Art. 188‑‑Review petition time‑barred‑‑Petitioner having no locus standi to file review, Supreme Court declined to condone delay as it was an attempt to re‑open matter which had assumed finality‑‑Petition dismissed.
Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Khan Imtiaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Saeed‑ud‑Din, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 3rd December, 1985.
‑ This petition is barred by 89 days. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as he was not a party in Civil Appeal No. 294 of 1976, he was not aware of the judgment and it was only when a copy of the judgment was filed before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner‑in the first week of June, 1984 that he came to know of it and thereafter took steps to file this petition. In the proceedings culminating in the judgment of the High Court, which was challenged in this appeal, he was a party and though he claims to be aggrieved by the order of auction, yet he did not refile the petition in this Court which was returned to him for compliance, and thus, allowed the order to become final as against him. Accordingly, he has no locus standi to file this review petition which is barred by 89 days. The delay in this context cannot be condoned as this is an attempt to reopen the matter which has assumed finality.
The petition, therefore, fails and is hereby 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