1994 PLP 279 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD HANIF and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SULTAN‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 279 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Saleem Akhtar and |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HANIF and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SULTAN‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 279 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 279 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Saleem Akhtar and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 279 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD HANIF and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SULTAN‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Senior Advocate and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 12th October, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(For review of judgment dated 26‑11‑1992 passed in Civil Appeal No.1060/1990). (a) Supreme Court Rules, 1980‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O.XXVI, R. 1‑‑‑Review of Supreme Court judgment on grounds that respondent having not agitated in the High Court any of factual grounds, Supreme Court could not have examined those grounds at all and that there was plausible explanation for the inconsistencies taken note of and appearing in the evidence and they could not be made basis for dismissing petitioner's claim‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Ground not argued in High Court was in fact taken in the memorandum of appeal which fact was not denied by petitioners; there was no express mention that such ground was given up‑‑‑High Court had recorded that no other argument was advanced‑‑‑‑Court at the apex which has a Constitutional duty to do complete justice could not be inhibited by any such restraint as suggested by petitioners (that points not agitated in the High Court could not have been examined by Supreme Court)‑‑‑Supreme Court has an abiding duty to attend to all aspects and to take an overall view of the case in dispensing justice‑‑‑With regard to appraisal of evidence and inconsistencies appearing therein, Court had fully taken note of them and petitioners had no answer to what was made the basis of judgment in appraising evidence‑‑‑No case for review of judgment was made out‑‑‑Review petition was dismissed in circumstances. (b) Supreme Court‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑‑ Administration of justice‑‑‑Supreme Court being at the apex has a Constitutional duty to do complete justice, thus, it can not be inhibited by any restraint and has an abiding duty to attend to all aspects and to take an overall view of the case in dispensing justice.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Supreme Court‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑‑ Administration of justice‑‑‑Supreme Court being at the apex has a Constitutional duty to do complete justice, thus, it can not be inhibited by any restraint and has an abiding duty to attend to all aspects and to take an overall view of the case in dispensing justice. Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Senior Advocate and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 12th October, 1993. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑Review of our judgment dated 26‑11‑1992 is sought on the grounds that the respondent having not agitated in the High Court any of the factual grounds the Supreme Court could not have examined it at all and that there was plausible explanation for the inconsistencies taken note of and appearing in the evidence and they could not be made the basis for dismissing the claim of the petitioners. 2: It is not denied that the ground not argued in the High Court was in fact taken in the Memorandum of appeal. There was no express mention that it was given up. What is recorded in the High Court judgment is that no other argument was advanced. The Court at the apex which has a constitutional duty to do complete justice cannot be inhibited by any such restraint as is suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It has an abiding duty to attend to all the aspects and to take an overall view of the case in dispensing justice.
3. As regards the appraisal of evidence and the inconsistencies appearing therein, the Court has fully taken note of them and the learned counsel has no answer to what is made the basis of the judgment in appraising the evidence in paras 3 and 4.
4. No case for review is made out and the Review Petition is dismissed. A.A./M‑1825/S Review Petition dismissed.