ABU FIAYYAB Versus MUHAMMAD SALEEM
This matter concerns a petition for review of a Supreme Court judgment dated 22-2-1988, which had dismissed a petition for leave to appeal. The review petitioners contended that the Supreme Court's previous order contained a factual error regarding the status of the underlying suit, specifically that the suit had already been decided by the trial court, rendering the Supreme Court's direction for the trial court to dispose of the suit redundant. The Supreme Court held that while it was not a fit case for a full review of the judgment, it was necessary to make a consequential correction to the order to reflect the admitted fact that the trial court had already decided the suit. The Court clarified that the High Court's original direction for the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously remained unexceptionable, but amended the specific paragraph of its previous order to remove the directive that had become moot due to the suit's prior disposal. The principle established is that the Court may exercise its power to correct factual inaccuracies in its orders when such corrections are necessary to reflect the admitted status of proceedings.
- Can the Supreme Court correct a factual error in its judgment regarding the status of a suit during review proceedings?
- Is a direction by the Supreme Court for a trial court to dispose of a suit rendered moot if the suit has already been decided?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑ This petition is for review of judgment of this Court, dated 22‑2‑1988; whereby leave to appeal petition filed by the other side was dismissed. The grievance (now by the respondent side in the Civil Petition) is with regard to the last paragraph of the said order which reads as follows:‑---
2. "We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that by setting aside the orders of the Civil Judge, Sargodha, dated 18‑10‑1986 and that of the Additional District Judge, Sargodha, dated 12‑4‑1987, the earlier order of the Civil Judge, dated 25‑1‑1984, has been revived and thus the suit in terms of the order of the High Court dated 29‑11‑1987 could not proceed We think he is right therefore, while refusing to grant leave to appeal, the learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit after recording evidence of the parties expeditiously as directed by the High Court on '' 29‑11‑1987."
3. The learned counsel has raised two‑fold contentions one that a clerical and technical mistake had crept in the order of the High Court, dated 24‑1‑1988 on account of which some observations made in para 3 of judgment of this Court, dated 22‑2‑1988 have caused prejudice to the review petitioners (respondents in the Civil Petition).
4. Secondly he has contended that the learned counsel for the other side (petitioner in Civil Petition) had himself admitted before this Court at the time of hearing of the petition for leave to appeal that the suit having already been decided by the trial Court in pursuance of the order of the High Court, an appeal before the District Judge was then pending. Therefore, this Court while dismissing the petition for leave to appeal of the other side in the aforequoted para 3 of its judgment, could have taken note of the admission of the said counsel, regarding the disposal of the suit.
5. After hearing the learned counsel, we do not consider it a fit: case for review of the judgment. The review petitioners may, if sod advised, seek the correction of technical /clerical error, if any, as stated by the learned counsel, from the High Court. However, as by now the learned counsel for both the sides have (at two separate stages) admitted before us that the trial Court had already decided the suit when this Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal on 22‑2‑1988; therefore, we consider it necessary to make consequential correction in the third paragraph of the judgment, dated 22‑2‑1988, which would as corrected read as follows:‑
6. "We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that by setting aside the order of the Civil Judge, Sargodha, dated 18‑10‑1986 and that of the Additional District Judge, Sargodha, dated 12‑4‑1967, the earlier order of the Civil Judge, dated 25‑1‑1984, has been revived and thus the suit in terms of the order of the High Court dated 29‑11‑1987 could not proceed. He may be right. However, in the circumstances of the case the High Court judgment directing the learned trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously after recording the evidence of the parties, is unexceptionable. Leave to appeal accordingly, is refused."
7. M.I./A‑202/S Order accordingly.