1968 SCMR 93 (PLP)
ALI SHER-Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION AND LYALLPUR AND other-Respondents
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 93 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ |
| Parties | ALI SHER-Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION AND LYALLPUR AND other-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 93 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 93 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 93 (PLP) (ALI SHER-Petitioner Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION AND LYALLPUR AND other-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Amjad Hussain Malik, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 15th May 1967, in Review Application No. 44 of 1966.) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58 (3)-Leave sought on no ground save "in the interest of justice"-Refused.
Judgment & Decree
CORNELIUS, C. J.-This petition seeks leave to appeal against (1) a judgment of the High Court dismissing a Letters Patent appeal against the decision of a learned Single Judge (the Chief Justice) dismissing the petitioner's petition for a writ in a Settlement matter ; and (2) a further judgment by the same Division Bench dismissing a petition for review of the earlier judgment. The petition for special leave to appeal against the former judg ment was barred by time by no less than 364 days when it was filed. As against the order in review, it was within time, but it makes out no ground for interference, except that "in the interests or justice," the Division Bench should have looked at a certain document, which it is said showed that the respondent, to whom the whole house had been transferred, had in fact been allotted only two rooms therein. The conditions requisite for grant of a review were clearly not made out. It was said also that, in refusing the review, the Division Bench had wrongly relied on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Muhammad Khan .v. Border Allotment Committee (P L D 1965 S C 623), where the view of a Full Bench of the High Court in the case of Jalal Din v. Muhammad Akram Khan (PLD 1963 Lah. 956.), was merely mentioned, I without any word of approval or disapproval. This view was that in the absence of express provision for a review in the statutory in struments relating to writs falling under Article 98, a review of such a High Court decision was not competent. This was, by itself a sufficient authority on which the Division Bench could rest its order refusing a review. Mr. Amjad Hussain Malik wished to raise the question that the view of the Full Bench required reconsideration. The weakness of the case lies in the fact that the document on which the petitioner relied for seeking a review, being a copy allegedly of late procurement from the Settlement records, was by no means of greater value than the copy which had been relied upon by the respondent throughout the proceedings in Settlement, and before the learned Single Judge in the High Court. It was therefore open to challenge on the point of authenticity, and thus required examination of evidence, which is outside the scope of a proceeding in the writ jurisdiction. This petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.