2003 PLP 1747 (SCMR)
Haji KHAN MUHAMMAD and others — Petitioners Versus RAJADA and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1747 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | Haji KHAN MUHAMMAD and others — Petitioners Versus RAJADA and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Supreme Court Rules, 1980 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1747 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court Rules, 1980 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1747 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqbal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1747 (SCMR) (Haji KHAN MUHAMMAD and others — Petitioners Versus RAJADA and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Anwar Ghuman, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th January, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 9th May, w2002 passed by this Court, in Civil Petition No.586-L of 1999).
O.XXVI, R.1
Petition was barred by 17 days
Points raised by the petitioner had already been dealt with by Supreme Court earlier in the judgment
Effect
Not permissible to re-hear the same matter under the pretext of review
Petition was barred by 17 days for which no plausible explanation was given
Review petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.
The petitioners seek review of judgment dated 9-5-2002 passed by this Court, in Civil Petition No.586-L of 1999.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) had passed the order dated 20-10-1987 independently of any instructions or directions from the then Minister Revenue, which was not open to any interference by the Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue). It was further stated that the Additional Commissioner. (Consolidation) fell in the hierarchy of the Consolidation Authorities under the provisions of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Land Holdings Ordinance, 1960.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length. The points raised by the learned counsel were argued and dealt with by this Court earlier in the impugned judgment under review. It is not permissible to re-hear the same under the pretext of review. Even otherwise this petition is barred by 17 days for which no plausible explanation was forthcoming.
4. This review petition has no merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. M.H./K-90/S Review petition dismissed.