HAQ NAWAZ vs Kh. SHAIQ HASSAN AND ANOTHER
This matter concerns a review petition filed against the Supreme Court's order dated 17th December 1976, in a civil petition for special leave to appeal. The petitioner sought review on the ground that they had newly discovered that the respondent was a transferee of an additional shop, supporting this claim with a P.T.O. document. The respondent, appearing in person, contended that the acquisition of the additional shop was obtained through an auction and was legally permissible. The Court held that the petitioner lacked the necessary locus standi to challenge the earlier transfer of property in favour of the respondent. Furthermore, the Court determined that it was inappropriate for the petitioner to introduce a fresh ground for review that had not been urged at any previous stage of the proceedings. Consequently, the Court found no error apparent on the face of the record to justify a review. The petition was dismissed accordingly, affirming the finality of the earlier order.
- Can a party introduce a new ground for review that was not raised at any previous stage of the proceedings?
- Does a petitioner have locus standi to challenge a property transfer in favour of another party in a review petition?
- What constitutes an error on the face of the record sufficient to justify a review of a Supreme Court order?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.-The petitioner seeks review of this Court's order dated 17th of December, 1976, in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No, 99 of 1975, on the sole ground that the petitioner had subsequently discovered that the respondent was a transferee of another shop in addition to the one which was the subject-matter of litigation ; and to support this contention he relied on the P. T.
0. Which he has now been able to obtain.
2. ' The caveator who appeared in person stated that he had obtained that shop in auction and that this acquisition is not hit by any provision of law.
3. Be that as it may, as the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the earlier transfer in favour of the caveator, it is inappropriate for him to seek review of the order on a fresh ground which was not urged at any stage of the proceedings. There is, therefore, no error on the face of the record.
4. ' The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.