MUHAMMAD YOUSAF KHAN vs HABIB BANK LIMITED through President and others
The petitioner sought a review of the Supreme Court's judgment dated 27-3-2003, which had previously dismissed his civil petition for leave to appeal. The core legal question was whether the grounds presented in the review petition warranted a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal concerning charges of misappropriation and embezzlement. The Court held that the review petition was meritless, noting that the points raised had already been thoroughly examined and decided. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's involvement in the misappropriation and embezzlement of funds, including the double encashment of 26 CPRs, was proven. Furthermore, the Court rejected the petitioner's claim of unawareness regarding his own admissions made on specific dates in 1994, which were duly exhibited before the Labour Court. The key principle laid down is that a review petition cannot succeed when it merely re-agitates points already adjudicated upon and fails to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record, especially where factual findings regarding misconduct are supported by evidence and admissions.
- Can a review petition succeed when it merely re-agitates points already decided in the original judgment?
- Does a claim of unawareness regarding exhibited admissions hold merit when those admissions were made by the petitioner himself?
ORDER
JAVED IQBAL, J.---The petitioner seeks review of the judgment, dated 27-3-2003 whereby the civil petition for leave to appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed.
2. All the points agitated while arguing the petition on 27-3-2003 A have been dilated upon and decided after having gone through the entire record with care and caution. From whatever angle the case may be examined on the basis of sheer technicalities as already held in the judgment impugned by the petitioner cannot be absolved from serious charges of misappropriation and embezzlement of heavy amount and encashment of 26 CPRs twice. The factum of misappropriation and embezzlement has been proved. It is worth-mentioning that insofar as the admissions made by the petitioner on 4-7-1994, 10-7-1994 and 27-8-1994 are concerned were well within his knowledge and got exhibited before the Labour Court, hence the question of unawareness does not arise.
3. No case of review is made out and accordingly the petition being meritless is dismissed.