YLR 2010

2010 PLP 246 (YLR)

NAWAB BIBI — Applicant Versus ZULFIQAR ALI and another — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
R. A. No.27 of 2009 in W.P. No. 3056 of 2009, decided on 5th March, 2009.
Honorable Judges
S. Ali Hassan Rizvi, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2010 PLP 246 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members S. Ali Hassan Rizvi, J
Parties NAWAB BIBI — Applicant Versus ZULFIQAR ALI and another — Respondents
Primary Law Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 246 (YLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 246 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: S. Ali Hassan Rizvi, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 246 (YLR) (NAWAB BIBI — Applicant Versus ZULFIQAR ALI and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Representation

  • Niaz Ahmad Wahla for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S.114 & O.XLVII, Rr.1, 5

Review

Scope

Review was not a rehearing of the whole lis

Even wrong exposition of law was never a ground for review

Order passed by the High Court was not without reasons and no error apparent on the face of record or any other sufficient reason had been shown so as to justify review. 2009 MLD 36 ref.

Judgment & Decree

S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.

Mst. Nawab Bibi petitioner through this application seeks review of the order passed by this Court on 18-2-2009 while dismissing. Writ Petition No.3056/09 in limine. Relying on 2009 MLD 36 it was contended by learned counsel that the order passed as afore-mentioned ought to be reviewed.

2. I am afraid the ground is not valid at all. Review, they say, is not a rehearing of the whole lis. Even wrong exposition of law is never a ground for review. The order passed by this Court on 18-2-2009, is not without reasons. No error apparent on the face of record or any other sufficient reason in terms of Order XLVII rule 5 and sections 114/151, C.P.C. has been shown by the learned counsel so as to justify review. If to the reading of the petitioner the order passed by this Court on 18-2-2009, was irksome, the remedy lay elsewhere and not by way of present review application. I, therefore, reject the application in-limine. H.B.T./N-59/L Application dismissed.