Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SHAD MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: SHAH POOR
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry Title: SHAD MUHAMMAD vs SHAH POOR Case No.: Civil Review Petition No,24-R of 1990 Civil Petition No,538-R of 1989 Date of Judgment:1990-05-20 Reported As: PLD 1990 Supreme Court 933 Result: Petition dismissed
Judgment ORDER ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.--Learned counsel for the review petitioner has relied on order dated 23-10-1989 in Civil Appeal No,95 of 1980 (see PLD 1990 SC 926 at p.928) to support the proposition that the partial success of the petitioner in retaining 1 kanal 10 marlas of the land in Khasra No,1059, would benefit him in asserting superior right of pre-emption as a co-sharer, also regarding the remaining land. The said order of reference to a larger Bench came under examination in a recent judgment reported as Gulzada v. Muhammad Usman through legal heirs and 6 others PLD 1990 SC 465. It reiterated the view in Ahmad Khan v. Sattar Din PLD 1981 SC 148 which is sought to be changed. It was held: "the conditions and limitations for reexamination of law declared by this Court are not satisfied here. Accordingly the law laid down in the case of Ahmad Khan would hold the field and the reference made on 23-10-1989 in the case of Mir Alam Gul to a larger Bench also, stands satisfied by the decision in the meanwhile in the case of Bashir Hussain Shah v. Maskin 1988 SCM R 1251 by the larger Bench of 4 Judges." This case of Gulzada was also decided by 4 Judges. Accordingly, it would not be proper to accept the prayer of the learned counsel that this review petition should remain pending any more till the decision of the reference made on 23-10-1989. Moreover, till a change in law declared by the Supreme Court is brought about by statutory or other means, the said law shall continue to be valid in the meanwhile. Accordingly, there is no force in this review petition and the same is dismissed.