Review proceedings
Review proceedings legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Review could not be allowed on the ground of discovery of some new material, if same was available at the time of hearing of trial, appeal or revision, as the case might be
Ground not taken or raised at such earlier stages could not be allowed to be raised in review proceedings.
Review had a very limited scope and it was only to rectify any mistake apparent on its face or of record, or if some material evidence had not been taken into consideration or had been totally ignored while passing the order/judgment
For the purpose of review jurisdiction, it was for the court to exercise it according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case, therefore, no party should be provided an easy way to cause unnecessary interference into the earlier conclusion of the court.
"Review proceedings", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124946105
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Review proceedings"
1989SCMR285
Mst. NOOR BEGUM and others — Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others — Respondents
Court: High CourtP L D 1969 Lahore 659
MUHAMMAD SARDAR KHAN‑Petitioner Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, WEST PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
Court: (b) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 21(1) read with Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) (Amendment) Ordinance (II of 1962), Ss. 6 & 7 as amended by Ordinance XIII of 1962‑Words "pending immediately before commencement of this Ordinance" to S. 7 of Ordinance II of 1962‑Mere fact that Chief Settlement Commissioner prior to 13th January 1962, had examined case afresh and had come to conclusion that order passed by his predecessor merited to be suo motu reviewed‑Enough to indicate that review proceedings had commenced before him and that such proceedings "pending" further adjudication and as such not affected by provision of S. 6 of Ordinance II of 1962.P L D 1969 Lahore 545
FAJAR ALI AND OTHERS‑ — Petitioners Versus Mst. JAMILA AND OTHERS‑ — Respondents
Court: S. 21 (1) read with Displaced Persons (Com pensation and Rehabilitation) (Amendment) Ordinance (II of 1962) as amended by Ordinance (XIII of 1962), Ss. 6 & 7‑Words "pend ing immediately before commencement of this Ordinance" in S. 7 of Ordinance II of 1962‑Moment Deputy Settlement Commis sioner had moved Additional Settlement Commissioner for permis sion to review, review proceeding deemed to have commenced Deputy Settlement Commissioner moving Additional Settlement Commissioner for permission to review orders of his predecessor much before promulgation of Ordinance ‑H of 1962‑--"Pending" proceed ings not affected by provisions of Ss. 6 & 7 of amending Ordinance II of 1962‑Deputy Settlement Commissioner, in circumstances, held, competent to review case even though permission of Additional Settlement Commissioner accorded after promulgation of Ordinance 11 of 1962.P D 1997 Supreme Court 865
Mian RAFIQ SAIGOL and another‑‑Petitioners Versus BANK OF CREDIT & COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL
Court:P L D 2014 Sindh 468
ZULIFQUAR AHMED and 14 others — Appellants Versus MAHMOOD ABBAS and 17 others — Respondents
Court: High Court2010 S C M R 446
PURDIL KHAN — Appellant Versus AZIZ-UR-REHMAN and others — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of PakistanP L D 2000 Supreme Court 77
Mohtarma BENAZIR BHUTTO ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN and 2 others ‑‑‑Respondents
Court:P L D 1992 Supreme Court 274
BASHIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus PIARA KHAN — Respondent
Court: High Court2002 C L C 1980
MUHAMMAD USMAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Hafizabad and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Board of Revenue, Punjab1982 S C M R 1152
MESSRS ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD.‑Petitioner Versus THE PRESIDENT OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents
Court: ‑ XXVI‑Review jurisdiction‑Limited in nature‑Point raised in, review proceedings forming part of a contention urged at time of hearing of appeal and dealt with and a finding given‑Held, another attempt to reargue point hence not permissible.‑Review by Supreme Court.