ASHIQ ALI AND Others vs THE DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, WEST
The petitioners sought a second review of the Supreme Court's order dated 17th June 1966, which had previously dismissed their petition for leave to appeal against a High Court decision regarding a Settlement matter. The petitioners requested the Court to admit a copy of a pedigree-table as fresh evidence to substantiate their claim to land in Pakistan under the Settlement Scheme, asserting this document proved their connection to the estate in question. The Court noted that the original petition for special leave was rejected because the final order in the Settlement proceedings was not vitiated by any substantial defect, and the initial review had already affirmed the power of cancellation, noting the allotment was vitiated by fraud. The Court held that it could not receive fresh evidence concerning the truth or falsity of the original claim during a second review proceeding. Consequently, the Court dismissed the request, clarifying that the petitioners were at liberty to present the newly procured evidence before the appropriate Settlement authorities for consideration rather than seeking its admission before the Supreme Court.
- Can the Supreme Court receive fresh evidence regarding the merits of a claim during a second review proceeding?
- Is the Supreme Court the appropriate forum to introduce new evidence concerning a claim rejected by Settlement authorities?
- Does the Supreme Court have the power to review its own order dismissing a petition for leave to appeal based on the introduction of new evidence?
ORDER
1. CORNELIUS, C. J.-The petitioners seek review of this Court's order of the 17th June 1966, itself passed on an application for review of an order of the Court dated the 3rd March 1966, dismissing their petition for leave to appeal against a decision of the High Court, refusing a writ to them in a Settlement matter. They wish the Court to receive in evidence, a copy of a pedigree-table, which allegedly proves their connection with a proposition, against whose estate they claim land in Pakistan under the Settlement Scheme. Their claim had been rejected in Settlement, and the. High Court had refused to interfere in writ jurisdiction.
2. The petition for special leave was rejected on the ground that the final order in Settlement was not vitiated by any sub--stantial defect. In the first review, the only point raised was as to the power of cancellation, and it was held that this existed. The allotment in their favour was vitiated by fraud.
3. Fresh evidence going to the truth or falsity of the original claim cannot be received by this Court, in second review. The petitioners may, if so advised, place the freshly procured evidence of pedigree before the proper, i.e. The Settlement authorities.