1990 PLP 924 (PLD)
MANZOOR HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ZOHRA BIBI‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 924 (PLD) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | MANZOOR HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ZOHRA BIBI‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 924 (PLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 924 (PLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 924 (PLD) (MANZOOR HUSSAIN‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. ZOHRA BIBI‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abid Hasan Minto, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Sh. Attaullah Sajjad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate -on‑Record for Petitioner.
- M. Hanif Niazi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana MA. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 23rd May, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art.188‑‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O. XXVI, R.1‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OXLVII, R.1‑‑‑Review petition‑‑‑Advocate who argued the appeal on behalf of the petitioner and who also drafted the petition for review and issued certificate was present in the Court but stated that he was not feeling well‑‑ Another Advocate on the instructions of ailing Advocate, was permitted by the Supreme Court, to argue the petition. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art.188‑‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI, R.1‑‑‑Review‑‑‑Contention that following sentence in the judgment under review did not correctly represent the High Court's judgment under appeal before the Supreme Court: "Lot many things were either wrongly assumed or ignored and as held by the High Court it was a classic case of sacrifice of reason at the altar of good language"‑‑‑Held, words and expression "it was a classic case of sacrifice of reason at the altar of good language" was the representation of what the High Court had "held" and not what it "said" in its judgment. It was pointed out that the following sentence in the judgment under review does not correctly represent the High Court's judgment under appeal before Supreme Court. "Lot many things were either wrongly assumed or ignored and as held by the High Court it was a classic case of sacrifice of reason at the altar of good language" Held, If the sentence quoted above or any part thereof was not an exact reproduction of any sentence used in the High Court judgment that did not mean that the High Court's findings were not to the effect as was stated in the above quotation. This was supported by the analysis of the High Court judgment in this behalf as was apparent from the next following sentence which reads as follows:‑ "The High Court duly pointed out the defects in that judgment and restored the trial Court judgment as it did not suffer from any such infirmity". Thus the words and expression; "it was a classic case of sacrifice of reason at the altar of good language", was the representation of what the High Court "held" and not what it "said" in its judgment; therefore, the argument of the petitioner being hypertechnical was of no help to him. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art.188‑‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, OXXVI, R.1‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLVII, R.1‑‑‑Review can not be granted for merely re examination of the same arguments.
Judgment & Decree
M. Hanif Niazi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana MA. Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent. Date of hearing: 23rd May, 1990. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C J.‑‑This petition seeks review of our Order dated 4‑4‑1990; whereby the petitioner's Civil Appeal No. 171 of 1982 was dismissed. Sh. Atta Ullah Sajjad, Senior Advocate, who argued the said appeal on behalf of the petitioner and who also drafted the petition for review and issued the required certificate is present and states that he is not feeling well. Mr. Abid Hasan Minto on his instructions, who has been permitted by the Court, argued A this petition. Learned counsel to start with pointed out that the following sentence in the judgment under review does not correctly represent the High Court's judgment under appeal before this Court: "Lot many things were either wrongly assumed or ignored and as held by the High Court it was a classic case of sacrifice of reason at the altar of good language:" If the sentence quoted above or any part thereof is not an exact reproduction of any sentence used in the High Court judgment that does not mean that the High Court's findings are not to‑the effect as is stated in the above quotation. This is supported by the analysis of the High Court judgment in this behalf as is apparent from the next following sentence which reads as follows: "The High Court duly pointed out the defects in that judgment and restored the trial Court judgment as it did .not suffer from any such infirmity." Thus the words and expression; it was a classic case of sacrifice of reason at the altar of good language', is the representation of what the High Court "held" and not what it "said" in its judgment; therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner being hypertechnical is of no help to him. With regard to the remaining arguments of the learned counsel there is no need to reproduce them here because they are re-petition of what Sh. Atta Ullah Sajjad had argued on 4th April, 1990 when the appeal was dismissed. The review cannot be granted for merely re‑examination of the same arguments. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed. M.B.A./M‑1395/S Petition dismissed.