1994 PLP 19 (SCMR)
Sh. MUBARIK ALI and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Syed EHTISHAM ALI RIZVI and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 19 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Saleem Akhtar and Fazal Ilahi Khan, .JJ |
| Parties | Sh. MUBARIK ALI and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Syed EHTISHAM ALI RIZVI and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Supreme Court Rules, 1980‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 19 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court Rules, 1980‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 19 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Saleem Akhtar and Fazal Ilahi Khan, .JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 19 (SCMR) (Sh. MUBARIK ALI and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Syed EHTISHAM ALI RIZVI and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. A. Waheed Saleem, Senior Advocate instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th October, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(For review of judgment dated 11‑10‑1992 passed in Civil Appeal No. 895/1990). ‑‑‑‑OXXVI, R. 1‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 188‑‑‑Review of Supreme Court judgment‑‑‑Review petition had been moved on assumption that power of attorney and agreement to sell related not to a specified area but to the claim and the verified units against which that area was allotted‑‑‑Petitioners on such assumption contending that any variation in units and its enhancement must benefit petitioners rather than vendor or principal‑‑‑Such assumption had not been made basis for judgment at all‑‑‑On the contrary, as documents in question showed, area which was the subject‑matter had been specified and demand could not be extended by any inferential process to the claim on basis of which that area had been allotted or its entitlement determined‑‑‑No case having been made out for review of judgment, review petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑OXXVI, R. 1‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 188‑‑‑Review of Supreme Court judgment‑‑‑Review petition had been moved on assumption that power of attorney and agreement to sell related not to a specified area but to the claim and the verified units against which that area was allotted‑‑‑Petitioners on such assumption contending that any variation in units and its enhancement must benefit petitioners rather than vendor or principal‑‑‑Such assumption had not been made basis for judgment at all‑‑‑On the contrary, as documents in question showed, area which was the subject‑matter had been specified and demand could not be extended by any inferential process to the claim on basis of which that area had been allotted or its entitlement determined‑‑‑No case having been made out for review of judgment, review petition was dismissed. Ch. A. Waheed Saleem, Senior Advocate instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th October, 1993. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑The petitioners seek review of our judgment dated i1‑10‑1992. This review petition has been moved on the assumption that the power of Attorney and the Agreement to sell related not to a specified area but to the claim and the verified units against which that area was allotted. On this assumption it is contended that any variation in the Units and its enhancement must benefit the petitioners rather than the vendor or the Principal.
2. This assumption has been not made the basis for judgment at all. 013 the contrary, as the two documents show, the area which was the subject matter had been specified and the demand cannot be extended by any inferential process to the Claim on the basis of which that area had been allotted or its entitlement determined.
3. No case is made out for review of our judgment and the Review Petition is dismissed. A.A./M‑1833/S Review dismissed.