1994 PLP 986 (SCMR)
Mst. MANZOOR BEGUM through Legal Heirs‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ALLAH RAKHI through Legal Heirs and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 986 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman mid Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. MANZOOR BEGUM through Legal Heirs‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ALLAH RAKHI through Legal Heirs and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 986 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 986 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman mid Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 986 (SCMR) (Mst. MANZOOR BEGUM through Legal Heirs‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ALLAH RAKHI through Legal Heirs and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kh. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on- Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Art.188‑‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI, R.1‑‑‑Review of Supreme Court judgment‑‑‑Review of judgment was sought on the ground that admission attributed to respondent's predecessor (deceased) could not be set aside in Constitutional jurisdiction and that judgment in question might impede petitioners even in matter of seeking reduction in the allotment' of deceased (respondent's predecessor) which was admittedly in excess of her entitlement‑‑‑First ground related to merits already considered‑‑‑Second ground was misconceived, because, judgment under review dealt with validity of admission and orders passed thereafter‑‑‑No ground for review was made in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J: ‑‑Review of our judgment dated 23‑6‑1993 is sought on the grounds that the admission attributed to Mst. Rakhi could not be set aside in Constitutional jurisdiction. Besides, the judgment may impede the petitioners even in the matter of seeking lawful reduction in the allotment of Mst. Rakhi which was, according to the learned counsel, admittedly in excess of her entitlement.
2. The first ground concerns the merits already considered. The second is misconceived, because the impugned judgment deals with the validity of the admission and the orders passed thereafter.
3. No ground for review made out. Dismissed. AA./N‑355/S Review dismissed.