Mst. ZAINAB KHATOON AND ANOTHER vs Mst. GHULAM FATIMA
This matter arises from a review petition seeking review of an order dated 5th November, 1977, which dismissed a petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court. The core legal question involves whether findings of fact can be interfered with in second appeal and whether a rehearing can be permitted under the guise of a review petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the contentions regarding the finality of findings of fact under sections 100 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 had already been considered and that a review petition cannot be used as a vehicle for a rehearing of the case. The key principle laid down is that re-arguing previously considered points and attempting a rehearing is impermissible in review proceedings.
- Can a petition for review be used as a vehicle for the rehearing of a case?
- Whether findings of fact based on conjectures and surmises can be interfered with in second appeal?
- Did sections 100 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 permit the reopening of decisions on questions of fact in the circumstances of this case?
- Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 101, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-The order dated 5th November, 1977 dismissing a petition for special leave to appeal is sought to be reviewed through this review petition.
2. ' The petitioners filed a suit for pre-emption on the assertion that the transaction in question was not a gift (as shown by the concerned parties), but it was a sale. The trial and first appellate Courts gave findings of fact in their favour. In 2nd appeal it was held by the Lahore High Court that the findings of fact by the Lower Courts were based on conjectures and surmises and were not based on any reliable evidence. As noted in the order under review, the learned counsel then appearing in this Court read the 'entire record'. The Court after reading the relevant statements observed : "We are fully satisfied that the transaction in dispute was a gift." It was also observed that "the High Court has considered all the evidence on record..
3. Learned counsel relying on Mir Abdullah v. Muhammad Ali and others (1) contends that sections 100 and 101, C. P. C. Did not permit the reopening of decision on questions of fact in 2nd appeal. This very argument was earlier advanced and considered. The case cited now was also noticed.'
4. Rehearing, particularly in the circumstances like the present, cannot be permitted under the cover of a petition for review. It is accordingly dismissed.
(1) 1977 SCM R 280 revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 3 cases
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs KAMRAN KHAN 2011 CLC 939
- Muhammad Yousaf vs Karam Khan 2011 C.L.R 448
- PAKISTAN LAWYERS FORUM and otherss vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others 2004 PLD Lahore 145