2003 PLP 1773 (CLC)
MEHR DIN and others — Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1773 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MEHR DIN and others — Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1773 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1773 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1773 (CLC) (MEHR DIN and others — Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Abdul Ghani for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 114 & O. XLVII, R. 1
Main aim of review was correction of errors not involving process of reasoning or appreciation of law and facts and not for correcting wrong decisions-- While exercising power of review, Court could not hear the matter as an appeal against its own judgment
Review petitioners, in wanted to re-open a finally decided matter and desired the merits involving questions of law and facts
Such review petition being misconceived, was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
(i) that notification subsequently issued according to which Tibba Sultanpur was declared as Town Committee in the year 1979 was not applicable to the case of the petitioners as was held in the order under review; (ii) application moved by the father of the petitioner was not made at belated stage as was observed in the order because for the grant of proprietary rights no limitation was prescribed; (iii) it was incorrectly observed in the order in question that suit-land was situated within the prohibitory zone of Town Committee, Tibba Sultanpur; (iv) it was established from the record that suit-land was situated beyond prohibited zone of the Town Committee; (v) according to notifications dated 1-10-1983 and 30-6-1994 respectively Annexures C-1 and H-1 limits of prohibited Lone were not applicable to allottees prior to notification, dated 12-12-1972; (vi) notification dated 24-3-1985 was not applicable to the case of the petitioners and that while deciding the writ petition an important fact escaped notice of the Court that petitioners were treated in a discriminatory manner; and (vii) petitioner's father was eligible for the grant of proprietary rights under notification dated 24-3-1985 which was not correctly interpreted.
3. From the above contentions it is obvious that the petitioners want to re-open a finally decided matter and desire rehearing on merits involving questions of law and facts.
4. Main aim of review is correction of errors not involving process of reasoning or appreciation of law and facts and not for correcting wrong decisions. While exercising power of review Court cannot hear the matter as an appeal against its own judgment.
5. Review petition is, therefore, misconceived and is accordingly dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-2003/L Review petition dismissed.