BASHIR AHMAD Versus PIARA KHAN
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a review petition filed against the impugned judgment reported as Piara Khan v. Bashir Ahmad 1991 SCMR 2107. The core legal question was whether a conflict of views expressed by another Bench of the Court in a separate case constitutes a valid ground for review. The Supreme Court held that the fact that another view has been expressed in another case is not a ground for review, as the petitioner was essentially seeking an impermissible re-hearing of the case. The key principle laid down is that divergent judicial opinions in separate cases do not fall within the narrow scope of review jurisdiction and cannot be entertained to reopen fully adjudicated matters.
- Whether a conflict of views expressed by another Bench in a separate case constitutes a valid ground for review?
- Can a review jurisdiction be invoked for seeking a re-hearing of a settled controversy?
- Section 25(3)(d), Martial Law Regulation 115
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.---In this case it was held in the impugned judgment that the superior right granted under section 25(3)(d) of Martial Law Regulation 115 to a tenant to resist a pre-emption suit was available even after the tenant purchased the land under his tenancy and had become its owner. The judgment is now reported as Piara Khan v. Bashir Ahmad 1991 SCMR 2107.
2. In support of this review petition Mr. Shamim Abbas Bokhari has pointed out that another Bench of this Court in Malik Pir Bakhsh etc. v. Ali Muhammad 1992 SCMR 1031 has taken a different view and he submits that the matter requires further consideration, if possible, before a larger Bench.
3. We do not consider that such a plea is admissible in these proceedings. The Court, in this case, took cognizance of the controversy and has dealt with it fully. In case another view is expressed in another case, it I cannot be a ground for review. In fact, the petitioner in this case is seeking a re-hearing of the case; such a prayer cannot be entertained in review i` jurisdiction and it does not fall within the scope of review proceedings. '
4. M.B.A./B-194/S Petition dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- ROSHAN DIN vs FATEH DIN and another 1993 CLC 2287