1998 PLP 729 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE‑‑‑Appellant Versus Mst. HANIFA BEGUM and 9 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 729 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court (AJ&K) |
| Bench Members | Sardar Said Muhammad Khan, C.J. and Muhammad Yunus Surakhvi, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE‑‑‑Appellant Versus Mst. HANIFA BEGUM and 9 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 729 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 729 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court (AJ&K) bench comprising: Sardar Said Muhammad Khan, C.J. and Muhammad Yunus Surakhvi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 729 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE‑‑‑Appellant Versus Mst. HANIFA BEGUM and 9 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
(In the matter of review from the judgment of this Court dated 18‑11‑1996 in Civil Appeal No.41 of 1996). ‑‑‑‑O.XI, R.1, proviso (ii) ‑‑‑Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.42‑‑‑Review of earlier judgment of Supreme Court‑‑‑While disposing of said appeal, Supreme Court had opined that question as to whether previous Constitutional petition was filed by petitioner or he was personified by someone else, could not be resolved in Constitutional jurisdiction for that being question of fraud, would need detailed inquiry‑‑‑Review jurisdiction of Supreme Court was not the same thing as appellate jurisdiction‑‑‑Points decided in appeal. thus, could not be re‑agitated by filing review. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑O.XI, R.1, proviso (ii) ‑‑‑Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.42‑‑‑Review of earlier judgment of Supreme Court‑‑‑While disposing of said appeal, Supreme Court had opined that question as to whether previous Constitutional petition was filed by petitioner or he was personified by someone else, could not be resolved in Constitutional jurisdiction for that being question of fraud, would need detailed inquiry‑‑‑Review jurisdiction of Supreme Court was not the same thing as appellate jurisdiction‑‑‑Points decided in appeal. thus, could not be re‑agitated by filing review. Petitioner in person. SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J.‑‑‑This review petition has beep directed against the judgment of this Court, dated 18‑11‑1996, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner‑ herein, was dismissed.
2. We have heard the preliminary arguments on the review petition. It has been contended by the petitioner that as the petitioner had filed a civil suit, which was pending at the time of the institution of the writ petition, it cannot be said that the writ petition tiled by the petitioner was hit by laches. According to the petitioner, if an order of a Rehabilitation Authority or Custodian is challenged as being mala fide, the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to try the matter. It may be stated that the aforesaid point agitated in the review petition has been dealt by us in the judgment under review. The petitioner, herein, filed the writ petition after the expiry of eleven months, reckoned from the date of the relevant orders passed by the Custodian. for which there is no explanation in the writ petition. It has also been dealt with in the relevant judgment that the petitioner filed a belated writ petition where his civil suit was still pending in the Civil Court and, thus, his plea with regard to the condoning of delay is without any force,
3. The other point or‑ which the writ petition was dismissed by the High Court and the findings were also confirmed by this Court was that the petitioner had previously filed a writ petition but the same was dismissed in default and fresh writ petition was not competent. The case of the petitioner is that the previous writ petition was not filed by him but by somebody else on his behalf to deter him from pursuing the remedy subsequently. While disposing of the appeal, this Court opined that the question as to whether the previous writ petition was filed by the petitioner or he was personified by some one, cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction because that being a question of fraud, needs a detailed inquiry. There is ample authority in support of the proposition that the question of fraud ordinarily is not to be resolved in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
4. It has repeatedly been held by this Court that the review jurisdiction is not the same thing as the appellate jurisdiction. Thus, the points decided in an appeal cannot be re‑agitated by filing a review. In the light of what has been stated above finding no force in this review petition, it is hereby dismissed in limine. A.A./227/SC(AJ&K) Review dismissed.