SULTAN through L.Rs, and others vs SAID KHAN and another
This review petition is directed against the judgment dated 6-12-2004 passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, whereby a civil petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. The core legal question before the court was whether the petitioners had made out a sufficient case for review under the established scope of review jurisdiction, specifically concerning the contention that an advocate was not authorized to make a commitment before the High Court. The court dismissed the review petition, holding that the learned counsel failed to point out any error or mistake on the face of the record or any ground constituting sufficient reason within the purview of review, and instead improperly attempted to re-agitate pleas already dealt with. The key principle laid down is that the scope of review is strictly limited and does not permit the re-hearing of a matter afresh.
- Does the scope of review permit the re-hearing of a matter afresh?
- What constitutes a sufficient ground for entertaining a review petition under Supreme Court practice?
ORDER
' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, C.J.--t This review petition is filed against judgment, dated 6-12-2004 of this Court whereby Civil Petition No,1841 of 2002 filed by petitioners was dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
2. Ch. Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners vehemently contended that this Court has not appreciated the real facts and circumstances of the case which resulted in miscarriage of justice. According to him Mr. Naghman Haider Zaidi, Advocate was neither engaged by the petitioners nor he was authorized to make any commitment before learned High Court.
3. Instead of pointing out any error or mistake on the face of record or ground constituting sufficient reason within the purview of review, learned counsel has re-agitated the pleas already dealt with by this Court in the impugned judgment. Scope of review is limited and does not permit re-hearing of the matter afresh.
4. Thus, finding no ground for interference in the impugned judgment, the instant review petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
Cited by 1 case
- Ghulam Mohiuddin, Zaman Khan Vardag, The Jurists Foundation (Regd.) 2023 SCP 223, 2023 PLD Supreme Court 825