SCMR 1994

1994 PLP 1663 (SCMR)

Sheikh SARFRAZ AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, MULTAN AND BAHAWALPUR DIVISIONS and others‑‑Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Review Petition No. 123/L of 1993 in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.627‑L of 1993, decided on 23rd November, 1993.
Honorable Judges
Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1994 PLP 1663 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ
Parties Sheikh SARFRAZ AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, MULTAN AND BAHAWALPUR DIVISIONS and others‑‑Respondents
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1663 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1663 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Saleem Akhtar, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1663 (SCMR) (Sheikh SARFRAZ AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, MULTAN AND BAHAWALPUR DIVISIONS and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate, Sheikh Abdul Aziz, Advocate and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
  • Nemo for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1993.

Headnotes / Summary

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art.188‑‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, OXXVI, R.1‑‑‑Review.of Supreme Court judgment‑‑‑Seeking demarcation of property through review‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Review was sought for sole reason that it might not prove to be an impediment in seeking demarcation of property transferred by Settlement Authority‑‑‑Such ground was not a valid ground for review‑‑‑Judgment sought to be reviewed had dealt with a limited controversy viz. of restitution‑‑‑No ground for review was made out‑‑‑Re view petition dismissed in circumstances. ORDER SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑Review of our judgment dated 23‑6‑1993 is sought for the sole reason that it may not prove to be an impediment in seeking demarcation of the property transferred by Settlement Authorities. This cannot be a valid ground for review. Besides, the impugned judgment has dealt with a limited controversy viz., of restitution. No ground for review is made out. Dismissed. AA./S‑794/S Review dismissed.

Judgment & Decree

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑Review of our judgment dated 23‑6‑1993 is sought for the sole reason that it may not prove to be an impediment in seeking demarcation of the property transferred by Settlement Authorities. This cannot be a valid ground for review. Besides, the impugned judgment has dealt with a limited controversy viz., of restitution. No ground for review is made out. Dismissed. AA./S‑794/S Review dismissed.