1981 PLP 519 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD YAQOOB ETc.-Petitioners Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) ETC.-Respondents
| Citation | 1981 PLP 519 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Anwarul Haq, C. J. and Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YAQOOB ETc.-Petitioners Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) ETC.-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 519 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 519 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Anwarul Haq, C. J. and Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 519 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD YAQOOB ETc.-Petitioners Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND) ETC.-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate with Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on- Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 188 read with Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI, r. I-- Review-Review sought on ground of petitioners having not consented to arrangement suggested by their counsel at time of hearing writ petition in High Court and accordingly they could not be bound by consent order made by High Court-Such point neither raised before High Court nor before Supreme Court at time of hearing of main petition Submission of such nature, held, does not furnish any justification for review of previous order. Date of bearing: 8th, March, 1981.
Judgment & Decree
ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.-This petition seeks a review of the order of this Court dated the 1st June, 1978, by which Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal Bearing No. 222 of 1978, was dismissed, mainly on the ground that the order made by the High Court was in the nature of a consent order, and, accordingly, the petitioners could not be permitted to re-open the matter. In coming to this conclusion special notice was taken of the observations made by the learned Judge in the High Court while dismissing the review application filed on behalf of the petitioners. Review is sought on the ground that the petitioners has not consented to the arrangement suggested by their counsel at the time of the hearing of the writ petition in the High Court, and accordingly, they could not be bound by the consent order made by the learned Judge. We notice that this point was not raised before the High Court, no before this Court at the time of hearing of the main petition. Such submission, accordingly, does not furnish any justification for review of our previous order. The review petition, accordingly, fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.