WAHEEDUDDIN KITCHLEW vs MURREE IMPROVEMENT TOWN TRUST Etc.
This matter concerns a review petition filed by the petitioner against the Supreme Court's earlier judgment dismissing his appeal. The core legal questions were whether a review petition can be based on arguments not previously raised during the appeal, and whether the Court should relax procedural rules regarding the presence of counsel and the constitution of benches for review proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that a review cannot be sought on grounds that were available but not advanced during the initial hearing. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that review proceedings are not a rehearing of the original appeal. The Court reaffirmed that it will not relax the mandatory provisions of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, specifically regarding the necessity of legal representation and the procedural requirements for review applications. The judgment clarifies that the concept of 'review' under the Supreme Court Rules is specific and distinct from generic judicial reconsideration, and that parties cannot seek to bypass established procedural rules by requesting larger benches or re-arguing settled matters.
- Can a review petition be based on a plea that was available to the petitioner but not advanced during the original appeal?
- Does a review petition constitute a rehearing of the original appeal?
- Can a party demand a larger bench for a review petition in contravention of the Supreme Court Rules?
- Order XXVI Rule 5, Supreme Court Rules 1980
- Order XXVI Rule 6, Supreme Court Rules 1980
ORDER
1. DORAB PATEL, J.-We had dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the 11th of May, 1980, after examining the submissions of the petitioner's learned counsel. And, by this application, the petitioner seeks a review of our judgment dismissing his appeal.
2. When this application had come up for hearing before us on the 26th of November, 1980, we had adjourned it with the following observations.- "The petition cannot be heard as the petitioner's Advocate is not present. We have adjourned the petition at the petitioner's request, but we have warned him that no further adjournment will be given."
3. We had passed this order, because it would be against the practice of this Court to relax the provisions of Order XXVI, rule 5, therefore, we enquired, from the petitioner why his Advocate was absent despite our order of 26th November, 1980. The petitioner did not give any explanation for his failure to produce his Advocate and instead, he advanced. Some arguments to which we will refer because the petitioner's conduct confirms us in our view that the provisions of rule 5 of Order XXVI, should not be relaxed.
4. Now, it is settled law that a review cannot be sought on a plea which was available to the petitioner, but was not advanced by him at the relevant time. And, in his arguments before us Mr. Raja Anwar did not challenge the judgment of the High Court on the ground that the Additional District Judge, who had allowed the appeal of the respondents against the trial Court's decree in favour of the petitioner, was not competent to entertain it. This may well have been, because leave was not granted to examine this question. Be that as it may, the petitioner insisted on submitting that this plea of jurisdiction, which had not been examined by us, amounted to an error apparent in our judgment. Now, if his learned counsel had been present, he would not have spent time in making, submissions contrary to the settled law.
5. We may also point out that the petitioner stated that we had to decide two other applications filed by him. The submission is not correct, because only the review petition has been fixed before us which is dismissed, and we cannot decide any other matter. However, we may point out here that the petitioner had filed an application that the review petition should be heard before a larger Bench and he has stated in this application--- "That in PLD 1980 SC 283, the following Ruling is quoted:- "Supreme Court-Judicial practice-Single Judge bound by his previous opinion-Such Judge subsequently feeling necessity of his earlier opinion being reviewed-Matter to be referred to a larger Bench."
6. This application was against the express provisions of rule 6 of Order XXVI, but it would appear that the petitioner is not aware of this rule. Be this as it may, this application was dismissed by the Chief Justice and this appeared to be one of the grievances of the petitioner, therefore we had to Point out to him that the application was against the express provisions of Order XXVI, rule 6. Apparently the petitioner was not aware of this rule. Additionally, we may point out that the passage in the judgment cited on which he- relied in his application was absolutely irrelevant, because Muhammad Haleem, J. Had used the word "review" in the case cited in it generic sense, whilst the word "review" in Order XXVI, is used in a very different sense. Therefore, on the footing that the application was filed bona fide, it is clear that the petitioner does not know the concept of a review in Order XXVI, and perhaps it was for this reason that he was trying to argue the review application as if it were the rehearing of the appeal Therefore, the time spent by the petitioner on this "review application" only confirms us in our view that the provisions of rule 6 of Order XXVI, should not be relaxed and as the petitioner has persisted is not producing his Advocate, Mr. Raja Anwar, his petition is dismissed.