1968 SCMR 486 (1) (PLP)
IMAD-UD-DIN KHAN-Petitioner Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS — Respondents
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 486 (1) (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and S. A. Rahman, J |
| Parties | IMAD-UD-DIN KHAN-Petitioner Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 486 (1) (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 486 (1) (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and S. A. Rahman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 486 (1) (PLP) (IMAD-UD-DIN KHAN-Petitioner Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On review of this Court's order dated the 29th March 1967, in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 304 of 1966). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 114-Review-No cap for Review made out-Petition dismissed. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
S. A. RAHMAN, J.-The Settlement authorities refused to transfer to the petitioner a house for which he had put in C. H. Form on the ground that he was not in possession thereof. In 1961, he called in question the order passed by the Settlement authorities but his petition was dismissed by the High Court. He did not challenge the order of the High Court on that occasion by any petition for special leave to appeal to this Court. In 1965, however, he filed a second writ petition to re-agitate the question of his possession M respect of the same property. This petition was summarily dismissed on the ground that the decision in the previous writ petition stood in his way. On this very ground a Bench of this Court, by order dated the 29th March 1967 had declined to grant special leave to appeal from the order of the High Court. The petitioner now seeks review of the earlier order of this Court. He has appeared in person and placed before us some written arguments which do not assist him. The position as clarified above has not been in any way affected by what he has stated in the written arguments. No case has been made out for grant of review and the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.