2002 PLP 2001 (SCMR)
MAUJ DIN through Legal Heirs and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION and otters‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 2001 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | MAUJ DIN through Legal Heirs and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION and otters‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Supreme Court Rules, 1980‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 2001 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court Rules, 1980‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 2001 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 2001 (SCMR) (MAUJ DIN through Legal Heirs and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION and otters‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Taqi Ahmed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Mahmoodul Islam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 4th April, 2002.
- MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑‑We have gone through the record with the assistance of Mr. Taqi Ahmed Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the Petitioners and Mr. A.R. Shaukat, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the respondents. After perusal of the relevant material available on the record, it transpired that the calculation in the terms of P.I. Units given in the judgment under review is Correct in accordance with the entries of the said record. The petitioner actually wants rehearing to reopen the matter relating to calculation of P.I. Units in relation to area, which is not permissible. No case of mistake on the face of record as alleged in this petition has been made out. It may, however, be observed that during hearing of this petition it was noticed that in the judgment under review number of Khata from where the land of the respondents is to be cancelled has been recorded as No.17 whereas its correct number is 19, therefore, Khata No. 19 shall be read instead of 17 in the judgment and subject to above modification, this petition is dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from this Court's order dated 15‑4‑1999 passed in Civil Petition No.220‑L of 1998). ‑‑‑‑O. XXVI‑‑‑Review of Supreme Court judgment‑‑‑Clerical mistake‑‑ Wrong description of number of Khata‑‑‑Petitioner wanted rehearing to reopen the matter relating to calculation of Produce Index Units in relation to disputed area‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Such rehearing was not permissible‑‑‑No case of mistake on the face of record as alleged in review petition was made out‑‑ Supreme Court, during hearing of the present petition notice that in the judgment under review number of Khata from where the land of the respondents was to be cancelled had been recorded at No.17 whereas its correct number was 19, therefore, Khata No. 19 would be read instead of 17 in the judgment and subject to such modification, petition is dismissed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑‑We have gone through the record with the assistance of Mr. Taqi Ahmed Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the Petitioners and Mr. A.R. Shaukat, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the respondents. After perusal of the relevant material available on the record, it transpired that the calculation in the terms of P.I. Units given in the judgment under review is Correct in accordance with the entries of the said record. The petitioner actually wants rehearing to reopen the matter relating to calculation of P.I. Units in relation to area, which is not permissible. No case of mistake on the face of record as alleged in this petition has been made out. It may, however, be observed that during hearing of this petition it was noticed that in the judgment under review number of Khata from where the land of the respondents is to be cancelled has been recorded as No.17 whereas its correct number is 19, therefore, Khata No. 19 shall be read instead of 17 in the judgment and subject to above modification, this petition is dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑395/S