1994 PLP 2026 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑Art.188‑‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, OXXVI, R.1‑‑‑Review of Supreme Court judgment‑‑‑Submissions made earlier in Supreme Court at the hearing of petition for leave to appeal and before the lower forums were reiterated on behalf of petitioner‑‑‑Such submissions could not be considered for review of the judgment‑‑‑All the lower forums had on appraisal pf evidence had come to the conclusion that petitioner had failed to prove her title to the property in question‑‑‑Factual aspects having been properly gone into by the lower forums, Supreme Court had declined to interfere and grant leave‑‑‑No case for review was made out‑‑‑Petition for review was dismissed in circumstances. Jan Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th November, 1993. WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J: ‑‑Mst. Saifura, petitioner herein, seeks review of the judgment of this Court dated 1‑11‑1992 in C.P. No.30‑P/91, whereby her petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. The background of the controversy between the parties is that the petitioner instituted Suit No. 736/1 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kohat dated 22‑12‑1983 wherein she alleged that in the execution of warrant of possession of decree passed in Suit No. 17/1 issued on 8‑1‑1973 she was not impleaded as a party and was being dispossessed, and that she was not bound by the said decree. She claimed ownership of 1/8 in the decreed house as dower by her husband Badshah Gul son of Abdul Hanan whose two sons were parties to‑ the case. The suit after contest was dismissed vide order dated 5‑3‑1987 and the appeal filed before the District Judge met the same fate vide order dated 23‑1‑1989. The appeal before the High Court too, could not succeed and the petition for leave to appeal was also dismissed by this Court through the judgment under review. We have heard Mr. Jan Muhammad Khan, Advocate, for the petitioner and have perused the record of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his submissions made by him earlier in this Court at the time of the hearing of the petition for leave to appeal and before the lower forums. We are afraid, they cannot be considered for review of the judgment. All the lower forums had on the appraisal of the evidence come to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to prove her title to the suit house and therefore, the factual aspect having been properly gone into by the lower forums, this Court declined to interfere and grant leave. No case for review has been made out and the instant petition is accordingly. A. A. / S 824/S Petition dismissed.