1975 PLP 141 (SCMR)
IZZAT BAKHSH — Petitioner Versus NAZEER AHMAD AND OTHERS — Respondents
| Citation | 1975 PLP 141 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Anwarul Haq, JJ |
| Parties | IZZAT BAKHSH — Petitioner Versus NAZEER AHMAD AND OTHERS — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Supreme Court Rule, 1956 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1975 PLP 141 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court Rule, 1956 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1975 PLP 141 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Anwarul Haq, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1975 PLP 141 (SCMR) (IZZAT BAKHSH — Petitioner Versus NAZEER AHMAD AND OTHERS — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Ghias Muhammad, Senior Advocate instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim. Advocate -on-Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. Amjad Khan, Advocate instructed by Syed Inayat Hussain, Advocate -on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 29th April, 1974.
- Sh. Ghias Muhammad, Senior Advocate instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim. Advocate ‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Ch. Amjad Khan, Advocate instructed by Syed Inayat Hussain, Advocate -on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On a review of the order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan made on the 19th of February 1974 in C. P. S. L. A. No. 158 of 1972). -- O. XXVI-Review.-Production of additional evidence cannot be permitted for reviewing previous order.
Judgment & Decree
ANWARUL HAQ, J. This petition seeks a review of the order made by us on the 19th of February 1974 dismissing C. P. S. L. A. No. 158 of 1972. While doing so, we observed that we were in agreement with the view taken by the majority of the learned Judges in the High Court that the registration of the sale sought to be pre‑empted by the petitioner, was not fraudulently concealed from him by the vendors or the vendees, with the result that the petitioner was not entitled to invoke the aid of section 18 of the Limitation Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an important piece of evidence, namely, a certified copy of the sale‑deed in question, was omitted from consideration by the High Court, otherwise it would have shown that the petitioner had come to know of the sale only on or about the 22nd of June 1963, when the certified copy was applied for through one Munshi Barkat Ali, who had been instructed in this behalf by the petitioner's uncle Karam. At the Bar, an affidavit said to have been sworn by Munshi Barkat Ali was also produced and a request was made that it be placed on the record and read as a part of the evidence. All this effort has been made by the petitioner to get over the effect of the admission made by him at the trial that he had come to know of the sale almost immediately after its registration, and had sent his uncle Karam to Lahore to obtain a copy of the same. It is obvious that the certified copy of the sale deed, as well as the affidavit said to have been sworn by one Munshi Barkat Ali, cannot be allowed to be produced in evidence at this late stage. There is no averment that these facts, or this evidence, were not within the knowledge of the petitioner when the suit was pending in the trial Court. The matter is not st all covered by the provisions of rule 27 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure. As a result, we cannot permit the production of this additional evidence for the purpose of reviewing our previous order. On the basis of the material already on the record, we had examined the matter at quite some length, and had concurred with the view of the evidence taken by the majority of the learned Judges in the High Court. Nothing has been said at the Bar today to persuade us to depart from the view taken by us on the previous occasion. As a result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Leave refused.