1968 SCMR 104 (PLP)
Mst. NAWAB BIBI AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus Mst. HAMIDA BEGUM AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 104 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | S. A. Rahman and liamoodtir Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. NAWAB BIBI AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus Mst. HAMIDA BEGUM AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1962) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 104 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1962) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 104 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: S. A. Rahman and liamoodtir Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 104 (PLP) (Mst. NAWAB BIBI AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus Mst. HAMIDA BEGUM AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On review from the judgment and order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 23rd October 1967, in Civil Review Petition No. 50 of 1967).
Art. 62-Review-Cannot he granted merely because litigant is 'dissatisfied with Court's decision-Principle of grant of review: Some new point based on discovery of new evidence which could not with diligence be found out previously.
Art. 62-Review-Four successive review petitions, repeatedly filed in same cause, after - dismissal of previous one-Petition held, unnecessarily wasting time of Court by repeatedly filing frivolous petitions--Petition dismissed and warning administered lest petitioner exposes himself to more drastic action for contumaciously persisting in filing such petitions. Petitioner No. 1 in person.
Judgment & Decree
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.-This is the fourth review petition filed by the petitioner Feroze Din in this case and again the grounds of review are the same as those raised in the previous review petitions, namely, that the allotment order of the respon dent was a forged document and that the petitioner is a genuine allottee and rightful claimant. These points had been considered even in the first two review petitions tiled by the petitioner in this Court. A review cannot be granted merely because a litigant is dis satisfied with a decision of this Court. The principles upon which a review can be granted are well settled, i.e. there must be A some new point based upon discovery of new evidence which could not, with diligence, haw been found out on the previous occasion: There is no appeal from orders of this Cotift and a mere desire for a rehearing of a matter cannot constitute a sufficient ground for the grant of a review. It seems to us that the petitioner is unnecessarily wasting the time of this Court by repeatedly filing frivolous review petitions: This petition is dismissed, but the petitioner should take heed lest he exposes himself to more drastic action by this Court for so contumaciously persisting in filing review petitions. Petition dismissed