1968 SCMR 130 (PLP)
NAZIR AHMAD AND 7 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus NIZAM DIN AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 130 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | S. A. Rahman and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | NAZIR AHMAD AND 7 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus NIZAM DIN AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1962) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 130 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1962) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 130 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: S. A. Rahman and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 130 (PLP) (NAZIR AHMAD AND 7 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus NIZAM DIN AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Majid Khan, Advocate, Supreme Court instructed by S. Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On review from the judgment and order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, dated the 10th October 1967, in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 323 of 1967).
Art. 62-Review-Point agitated taken up by Court previously-Petition for review dismissed.
Art. 58(3)-Leave to appeal to Supreme Court-Court not bound to grant such leave merely because a question of law is raised-Power discretionary-Petition for review dismissed where such power had been exercised judicially.
Judgment & Decree
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.-This petition has been filed for the review of the order passed by this Court on the 10th of October 1967, dismissing Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 323 of 1967. Learned counsel aping in support of the petition contends that since this Court, whilj dismissing the petition for special leave on the ground that substantial justice had been done, had omitted to Notice that even substantial justice must be in accordance with law, that order should be reviewed. In the present case, the main contention of the petitioners is that after an appeal under the Displaced Persons (Land Settle ment) Acts had, been dismissed by a Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner on the ground that it was time-barred the confirraation proceedings could not be re-opened, as section 5 of the Limitation Act did not apply 1to proceedings under the Land Settlement Act. It appears that the main ground, which weighed with this Court in dismissing the petition for special leave, was that in the case under consideration the High Court had held that the authorities had been acting under their powers under the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956, and under this Act no time limit is prescribed for suo motu summoning of the records of any case and correcting errors therein. There is, therefore, no substance in the contention of the learned counsel that this Court had notlA taken the point, which he now seeks to agitate, into consideration. On the question of substantial justice also it has to bq remembered that this Court is not bound to grant special leave to appeal merely because a question of law is raised. The Court[ has a discretion in the matter of granting leave and this discretion B was exercised judicially in the present case, as it was found that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein had justly been granted lands from the area under his temporary allotment to meet his additional entitlement which he had acquired as a result of inheritance from his brother. No ground for review has, accordingly, been made out. This petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.