Review by Supreme court
Review by Supreme court legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Where all material grounds taken up by petitioner during the course of hearing of appeal had been dealt with and decided by Supreme Court in the judgment under review, re-hearing of the same arguments on the wish of the petitioner in order to obtain a different decision without satisfying jurisdictional requirement necessary for maintaining review petition, is not legally qualified.
Escaping of an important legal aspect is an error apparent on the face of record which can be set right and such aspect can be reviewed.
Non-compliance of Supreme Court Rules and negligence of party excused by Supreme Court while exercising judicial discretion-Interference declined by way of review.
"Review by Supreme court", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/12784
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Review by Supreme court"
1985 S C M R 173
ABDUR RAHIM and another — Petitioners Versus GHULAM NABI and others — Respondents
Court: ---O.XXVI--Review by Supreme Court--Contention in favour of review petition a question of fact and in that connection Authorities concerned holding against petitioner--Finding of Authorities based on record and duly noticed in judgment under review--No case having been made out for review petition dismissed---Review by Supreme Court.1980 S C M R 504
ABDUL MAJEED AND ANOTHER-Petitioners Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS-Respondents
Court: -- Art. 188-Review-Submissions relating to merits of case, if entertained, amounting to rehearing of petition for special leave to appeal--Held, rehearing of petition beyond scope of review jurisdiction-Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI.-Review by Supreme Court.1981 S C M R 734
MUHAMMAD AZAM-Petitioner Versus KHALID JAVED GILLAN, ETC.-Respondents
Court: -- S. 497(5)-Bail, cancellation of-Bail pressed on basis of alibi and some other grounds-Supreme Court being reluctant to make any observations likely to affect case of parties in Sessions Court allowed bail on basis of plea of alibi due to its being supported by a certificate issued by Medical Superintendent of Mental Hospital at L while occurrence allegedly taking place at a distant place X' on same day-Material about respondent's mental condi tion and material about manner of his admission in Mental Hospital, held, not relevant to order granting bail and order of Court not open to review on such ground-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art, 188.-Review by Supreme Court.1984 S C M R 1033(1)
BASHARAT KHAN -Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
Court: --Art. 188-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302-Murder-Review --Reappraisal of evidence-Case not found fit for reappraisal of evidence meant to arrive at a different conclusion on questions fact-Review not allowed ---Review by Supreme Court.1981 SCMR 781
SANAULLAH AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus KAMAL DIN-Respondent
Court: -- Art. 188 read with Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI -Review-Petition for leave to appeal withdrawn by petitioner's counsel and petition dismissed accordingly - Contention as to petition having been withdrawn without petitioner's consent and raised an important question of law hence petition for review merited admission-Held, review petition even if supposed to merit admission, petition for leave having been dismissed as withdrawn, error, if arty, lay in statement made by petitioner's counsel and no error, much less any error apparent in order dismissing petition for leave.-Review by Supreme Court.1985 S C M R 106
Mst. RAZIA SULTAN and another — Petitioners Versus Lt.-Col. (Rtd.) M. M. QURESHI and another — Respondents
Court: ---O.XXVI--Review by Supreme Court--No ground as mentioned it O.XXVI made out--Review petition dismissed as being without merit.- Review by Supreme Court.1981 S C M R 762
BEGUM RAZIA MUTTAQI AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION (PAKISTAN) ETC.
Court: Art. 188-Review by Supreme Court-Order, held, cannot be reviewed merely because of being erroneous or a different view being possible.-Review by Supreme Court.1981 S C M R 797
NIAZ MUHAMMAD -Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
Court: -- Art. 188 read with Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI Review by Supreme Court--According to Doctor a number of cardboards and 12 metallic pieces extracted from different parts of dead body whereas order under Review stating cardboards, metallic pieces, and a bullet having been recovered - Real point being that on examination of description of injuries sustained by deceased conclusion drawn that they had been caused by two different types of weapons and such conclusion not resting on fact of a bullet being extracted from body, such slight error to regard to description of medical evidence, held, did not in any manner affect conclusions reached by Court as to veracity of prosecution case, hence, no ground for review made out.-Review by Supreme Court.1984 S C M R 1505 (2)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑Petitioner Versus DOST MUHAMMAD and another‑‑Respondents
Court: ‑‑‑ XIV_ r.6‑‑Review‑‑Petition against dismissal of review petition‑‑ Counsel who argued case not present in Court‑‑Petition dismissed for non‑compliance of relevant rules. ‑‑Review by Supreme Court.P L D 1982 Supreme Court 203
ALLAH BAKHSH‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
Court: Art. 188‑Review‑Petitioner a fugitive from law‑Held, not entitled to seek any relief even by review.‑Review by Supreme Court Absconder.