Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Haji KHAN MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: RAJADAHonorable Justice FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHARM. Anwar Ghuman,RAJADA
2003 S C M R 1747
2003 S C M R 1747
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Javed Iqbal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ
Haji KHAN MUHAMMAD and others---Petitioners
Versus
RAJADA and others---Respondents
Civil Review Petition No. 102-L of 2002 in Civil Petition No.586-L of 1999, decided on 29th January, 2003.
(From the judgment dated 9th May, w2002 passed by this Court, in Civil Petition No.586-L of 1999).
Supreme Court Rules, 1980---
----O.XXVI, R.1---Review of judgment---Re-hearing of matter---Petition was barred by 17 days---Points raised by the petitioner had already been dealt with by Supreme Court earlier in the judgment---Effect---Not permissible to re-hear the same matter under the pretext of review---Petition was barred by 17 days for which no plausible explanation was given---Review petition was dismissed.
M. Anwar Ghuman, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 29th January, 2003.
ORDER
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.---The petitioners seek review of judgment dated 9-5-2002 passed by this Court, in Civil Petition No.586-L of 1999.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) had passed the order dated 20-10-1987 independently of any instructions or directions from the then Minister Revenue, which was not open to any interference by the Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue). It was further stated that the Additional Commissioner. (Consolidation) fell in the hierarchy of the Consolidation Authorities under the provisions of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Land Holdings Ordinance, 1960.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length. The points raised by the learned counsel were argued and dealt with by this Court earlier in the impugned judgment under review. It is not permissible to re-hear the same under the pretext of review. Even otherwise this petition is barred by 17 days for which no plausible explanation was forthcoming.
4. This review petition has no merit and the same is dismissed accordingly.
M.H./K-90/S Review petition dismissed.