1986 PLP 1179 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD HANIF — Petitioner Versus SAMAR GUL and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1179 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Haleem, C. J., Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Nasim Hassan Shah, Shafiur Rahman and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HANIF — Petitioner Versus SAMAR GUL and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1179 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1179 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Haleem, C. J., Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Nasim Hassan Shah, Shafiur Rahman and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1179 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD HANIF — Petitioner Versus SAMAR GUL and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian M. Younis Shah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- S. Safdar Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th March, 1986.
- S. Safdar Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On review from the Judgment of this Court, dated 12-9-1985, in Civil Appeal 28-P/84). --Art. 188--Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI, r. 1--Review, grounds for--Point not having been raised in appeal, petitioner, held, not entitled to re-argue same matter at review stage--Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.‑‑By this petition review of this Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 28‑P of 1984, dated 12th September, 1985, has been sought.
2. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the documents on the basis of which this Court held that a fresh period of limitation accrued to the plaintiffs under section 19 of the Limitation Act, were not signed as required by that provision of law. On a perusal of the judgment, however, we find that in support of the plea of acknowledgment, reliance was placed on two memos dated 18th December, 1959 and 22nd April, 1960, issued by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, as a result of which mutation was effected in the revenue record admitting that the Government was claiming only mortgagee's rights. Apparently as the evacuee's rights in land vested in the Central Government and were administered by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, it was held that the latter acted as the agent for the Government. The effect was that memos issued by him were binding on the Government as acknowledgment in writing. Apparently these memos were issued under the signature of the Chief Land Commissioner. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention advanced.
3. In any case as expressly observed in the judgment the question of sufficiency of this evidence as acknowledgment of liability was not raised on behalf of the respondents in the appeal (the present petitioner). The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to re‑argue the same matter at review stage.
4. After hearing the learned counsel at length we find no substance in this review petition which is accordingly dismissed. M. I. Petition dismissed.