2008 PLP 562 (SCMR)
SULTAN through L.Rs. and others — Petitioners Versus SAID KHAN and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 562 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hameed Dogar, C. J. Ijaz-ul-Hassan Khan and Ch. Ejaz Yousaf, JJ |
| Parties | SULTAN through L.Rs. and others — Petitioners Versus SAID KHAN and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 562 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 562 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Hameed Dogar, C. J. Ijaz-ul-Hassan Khan and Ch. Ejaz Yousaf, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 562 (SCMR) (SULTAN through L.Rs. and others — Petitioners Versus SAID KHAN and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Gul Zarin Kiani, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- 2. Ch. Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners vehemently contended that this Court has not appreciated the real facts and circumstances of the case which resulted in miscarriage of justice. According to him Mr. Naghman Haider Zaidi, Advocate was neither engaged by the petitioners nor he was authorized to make any commitment before learned High Court.
Headnotes / Summary
(On review from the order/judgment, dated 6-12-2004 of this Court passed in Civil Petition No.1841 of 2002).
Art. 188
Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI, R.1
Review of Supreme Court judgment
Scope
No error or mistake on the face of record or ground constituting sufficient reason within the purview of review were pointed out in the impugned judgment rather contention of the petitioner was that Supreme Court had not appreciated the real facts and circumstances of the case which resulted in miscarriage of justice
Held, scope of review being limited same did not permit rehearing of the matter
Petition for review, was dismissed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, C.J.
This review petition is filed against judgment, .dated 6-12-2004 of this Court whereby Civil Petition No.1841 of 2002 filed by petitioners was dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
2. Ch. Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners vehemently contended that this Court has not appreciated the real facts and circumstances of the case which resulted in miscarriage of justice. According to him Mr. Naghman Haider Zaidi, Advocate was neither engaged by the petitioners nor he was authorized to make any commitment before learned High Court.
3. Instead of pointing out any error or mistake on the face of record or ground constituting sufficient reason within the purview of review, learned counsel has re-agitated the pleas already dealt with by this Court in the impugned judgment. Scope of review is limited and does not permit re-hearing of the matter afresh.
4. Thus, finding no ground for interference in the impugned judgment, the instant review petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. M.B.A./S-5/SC Petition dismissed.