Pakistan Case Law
1990 PLD 924

MANZOOR HUSSAIN Versus ZOHRA BIBI

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1990 PLD 924
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ. and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This review petition was filed seeking the review of the Supreme Court of Pakistan's order dated 4-4-1990, which had dismissed the petitioner's Civil Appeal No. 171 of 1982. The petitioner's counsel contended that a specific sentence in the Supreme Court's judgment, describing the case as a 'classic case of sacrifice of reason at the altar of good language', did not correctly represent the exact wording of the High Court's judgment under appeal. The Supreme Court held that even if the phrase was not an exact textual reproduction, it accurately represented the substance and effect of the High Court's findings regarding the defects in the lower appellate court's judgment. The Court further observed that the petitioner's argument was hypertechnical. Finding that the remaining arguments were merely a repetition of those already advanced and considered during the hearing of the main appeal, the Court reiterated that a review cannot be granted for the mere re-examination of the same arguments. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can a review petition be granted for the sole purpose of re-examining arguments that were already considered and rejected in the main appeal?
  • Does a descriptive characterization of a lower court's findings by the Supreme Court constitute a ground for review if it does not use the exact literal words of the lower court's judgment?
review petitioncivil appealre-examination of argumentshypertechnical objectionappellate findings

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C J. ‑‑This petition seeks review of our Order dated 4‑4‑1990; whereby the petitioner's Civil Appeal No. 171 of 1982 was dismissed.

2. Sh. Atta Ullah Sajjad, Senior Advocate, who argued the said appeal on behalf of the petitioner and who also drafted the petition for review and issued the required certificate is present and states that he is not feeling well. Mr. Abid Hasan Minto on his instructions, who has been permitted by the Court, argued A this petition.

3. Learned counsel to start with pointed out that the following sentence in the judgment under review does not correctly represent the High Court's judgment under appeal before this Court:

4. "Lot many things were either wrongly assumed or ignored and as held by the High Court it was a classic case of sacrifice of reason at the altar of good language:"

5. If the sentence quoted above or any part thereof is not an exact reproduction of any sentence used in the High Court judgment that does not mean that the High Court's findings are not to‑the effect as is stated in the above quotation. This is supported by the analysis of the High Court judgment in this behalf as is apparent from the next following sentence which reads as follows:

6. "The High Court duly pointed out the defects in that judgment and restored the trial Court judgment as it did .not suffer from any such infirmity."

7. Thus the words and expression; it was a classic case of sacrifice of reason at the altar of good language', is the representation of what the High Court "held" and not what it "said" in its judgment; therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner being hypertechnical is of no help to him.

8. With regard to the remaining arguments of the learned counsel there is no need to reproduce them here because they are re-petition of what Sh. Atta Ullah Sajjad had argued on 4th April, 1990 when the appeal was dismissed. The review cannot be granted for merely re‑examination of the same arguments. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed.

9. M.B.A./M‑1395/S Petition dismissed.

Cited by 16 cases

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