1970 PLP I26 (SCMR)
ASHIQ ALI AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus THE DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER,
| Citation | 1970 PLP I26 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ASHIQ ALI AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus THE DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP I26 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP I26 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 PLP I26 (SCMR) (ASHIQ ALI AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus THE DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 23rd October 1967.
Headnotes / Summary
(In the matter of review of the order of this Court, dated the 3rd March 1966, in Civil Review Petition No. 14 of 1966). Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 62 and Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI-Review-Fresh evidence cannot be received by Supreme Court in review. Petitioners in person.
Judgment & Decree
CORNELIUS, C. J.‑The petitioners seek review of this Court's order of the 17th June 1966, itself passed on an application for review of an order of the Court dated the 3rd March 1966, dismissing their petition for leave to appeal against a decision of the High Court, refusing a writ to them in a Settlement matter. They wish the Court to receive in evidence, a copy of a pedigree‑table, which allegedly proves their connection with a proposition, against whose estate they claim land in Pakistan under the Settlement Scheme. Their claim had been rejected in Settlement, and the. High Court had refused to interfere in writ jurisdiction. The petition for special leave was rejected on the ground that the final order in Settlement was not vitiated by any sub stantial defect. In the first review, the only point raised was as to the power of cancellation, and it was held that this existed. The allotment in their favour was vitiated by fraud. Fresh evidence going to the truth or falsity of the original claim cannot be received by this Court, in second review. The petitioners may, if so advised, place the freshly procured evidence of pedigree before the proper, i.e. the Settlement authorities. The petition is dismissed.