Pakistan Case Law
1983 SCMR 177

Haji MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs Mian ASAD HAKIM AND Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1983 SCMR 177
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Review Petition No. 1 of 1982
Date1981-10-19
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Shafi‑ur‑Rehman and Mian Burhanuddin Khan
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for review of a judgment dated 14 December 1982 was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The petitioner sought to re-argue points that had already been decided by the Court and requested that a cautionary note be recorded to prevent prejudice regarding a decision after remand on specific issues (Issues Nos. 5 and 5-A) in relation to the decision on Issue No. 4. The Supreme Court held that no justification was presented to warrant a re-hearing of the case. The Court declined to grant the requested cautionary note, observing that the petitioner would not suffer any real prejudice, subject to the extent that the decision on Issue No. 4 had gone against him and its necessary consequences. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petition as lacking merit, reaffirming the principle that a review petition cannot be used as a platform to re-argue points already decided by the court.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can a party seek a review of a judgment solely to re-argue points that have already been decided by the Supreme Court?
  • Will the Supreme Court record a cautionary note to prevent prejudice on remand if it reduces the effect of a decided issue?
review petitionre-hearingremandprejudicecivil procedure

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J -Learned counsel in support of this petition for review of judgment dated 14-12-1982, has tried to re- argue the points already decided by this Court. No justification, however, has been made for attempted re-hearing.

2. The request that "a word of caution be recorded," so as to avoid prejudice to the petitioner regarding decision after remand on issues Nos. 5 and 5-A, in so far as it purports to reduce the effect of decision on issue No. 4, cannot be granted. That being so, it is observed that the petitioner shall not suffer any real prejudice, subject of course to the extent the decision on issue No. 4 has gone against him together with necessary consequence thereof, in the circumstances of the case.

3. With the foregoing this petition is dismissed as without any merit.

Cited by 3 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.