1970 PLP 34 (SCMR)
ABDUL MAJID-Petitioner Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 6 OTHER — Respondents
| Citation | 1970 PLP 34 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL MAJID-Petitioner Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 6 OTHER — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 34 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 34 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1970 PLP 34 (SCMR) (ABDUL MAJID-Petitioner Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 6 OTHER — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Fazl-i-Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masud Akhtar, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 23rd October 1967.
- Fazl‑i‑Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masud Akhtar, Attorney for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(In the matter of review of this Court's order, dated the 3rd May 1967, in Civil Appeal No. 84 of 1964). Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI-Review-Question of interpretation of provision in enactment-Mere plea that another interpretation possible-No ground for review.
Judgment & Decree
Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI‑Review‑Question of interpretation of provision in enactment‑Mere plea that another interpretation possible‑No ground for review. Fazl‑i‑Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masud Akhtar, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 23rd October 1967. S. A. RAHMAN, J.‑Abdul Majid's appeal from an order of the High Court, by which his writ petition, calling in question the validity of certain orders of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Department, was dismissed, was heard by a Bench of three Judges of this Court, and dismissed by order dated the 3rd May 1967. This is a petition on his behalf for review of that judgment. The main point urged by Mr. Fazl‑i‑Mahmood in support of the petition for review, is that the interpretation of the substantive part of section 2 (12) and the two provisos sub joined to that section, adopted by this Court, was erroneous. This point has been fully dealt with in the impugned order of this Court, and the contention raised merely amounts to a plea that another‑inter pretation of the relevant provisions was possible, and should have been adopted. This furnishes no ground for review. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.