1979 PLP 241 (SCMR)
WAHAJUDDIN AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus RAZIA BEGUM ETc.‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1979 PLP 241 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ----O. XLVII, r. 1‑Review‑Review of earlier order of Supreme Court sought on ground that factual finding of various settlement authorities on question of indivisibility of disputed house was conflicting and this aspect escaped attention of Court‑Factual controversy, held, can hardly be a ground to invoke review jurisdiction of Supreme Court specially when such controversy abandoned and not pressed during hearing of appeal‑Petition dismissed, in circumstances.‑‑Review. |
| Bench Members | Qaisar Khan, Muhammad Haleem and Karam Elahee Chauhan, JJ |
| Parties | WAHAJUDDIN AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus RAZIA BEGUM ETc.‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1979 PLP 241 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1979 PLP 241 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ----O. XLVII, r. 1‑Review‑Review of earlier order of Supreme Court sought on ground that factual finding of various settlement authorities on question of indivisibility of disputed house was conflicting and this aspect escaped attention of Court‑Factual controversy, held, can hardly be a ground to invoke review jurisdiction of Supreme Court specially when such controversy abandoned and not pressed during hearing of appeal‑Petition dismissed, in circumstances.‑‑Review. bench comprising: Qaisar Khan, Muhammad Haleem and Karam Elahee Chauhan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1979 PLP 241 (SCMR) (WAHAJUDDIN AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus RAZIA BEGUM ETc.‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Afzal Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in both the Petitions).
- Nemo for Respondents (in both the Petitions).
- Date of hearing: 15th May, 1978
Headnotes / Summary
(On review from judgment and order of Supreme Court dated 1‑7‑1976 m C. A. Nos. 157, 161 and 283 of 1970).
O. XLVII, r. 1‑Review‑Review of earlier order of Supreme Court sought on ground that factual finding of various settlement authorities on question of indivisibility of disputed house was conflicting and this aspect escaped attention of Court‑Factual controversy, held, can hardly be a ground to invoke review jurisdiction of Supreme Court specially when such controversy abandoned and not pressed during hearing of appeal‑Petition dismissed, in circumstances.‑‑[Review].
Judgment & Decree
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.‑(i) Civil Appeal No. 157 of 1970, titled Wahajuddin and Masood Ahmad v. Mst. Razia Begum etc., (ii) Civil Appeal No. 161 of 1970, titled Mehr Khan v. Mst. Razia Begum and another and (iii) Civil Appeal No. 283 of 1970, titled Mst. Razia Begum v. Wahajuddin and others were disposed of by a common judgment and order of this Court dated 1‑6‑1978 as a result whereof the first two appeals were dismissed but the third appeal was accepted in terms of the said order.
2. Wahajuddin and Masood Ahmad appellants in Civil Appeal No. 157 of 1970 have filed a Review Petition being Civil Review Petition No. 32‑R of 1976, whereas Mehr Khan appellant in Civil Appeal No. 161 of 1970 has filed Civil Review Petition No. 33‑R of 1976 for review of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 1‑6‑1976. The present order will dispose of both these review petitions.
3. The petitioners claimed transfer of a portion of the house which was subject‑matter of dispute between the parties. In the earlier judgment and order of this Court, it was held that the finding of the relevant Settlement Authorities that the house was indivisible could not be interfered with, with the result that the transfer of the whole house to Mst. Razia Begum was well maintained and perfectly justified. This finding still holds the field and nothing has been pointed to persuade this Court to change the aforesaid factual finding in these review petitions. Learned counsel wanted to argue that one of the relevant orders in the case was of a Deputy Settlement Commissioner, who had, according to him, reviewed an order of his predecessor without obtaining a prior permission of his superior namely the Additional Settlement Commissioner and that this aspect of the matter escaped attention of this Court while examining the ultimate orders passed by the Settlement Authorities concerned. The factual finding of the various Settlement Authorities on this aspect of the matter was conflicting and it appears that the point was not argued before this Court during the hearing of the appeals and as such the aforesaid factual controversy can hardly be a ground to invoke review jurisdiction of this Court especially when it appears to have been abandoned and not pressed during the hearing of the earlier appeals. Learned counsel has not been able to make out any case or raise any ground within the provisions of Order XLVII, rule 1, C. P. C., warranting any review. The petitions have no merit and are dismissed in limine. Petitions dismissed.