GHIAS-UD-DIN Versus FALAK SHERRI
This matter concerns five review petitions filed against a common judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 29th October 1986, which arose from connected civil appeals. The petitioners sought review on the grounds that the Court failed to consider certain documents and arguments regarding the cancellation of property transfer orders and the classification of the disputed land as non-evacuee property. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could introduce new factual pleas and re-argue the merits of the case within the scope of review proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the alleged documents were not part of the record before the trial court or the appellate courts, and that the petitioners were attempting to set up an entirely new case not previously pleaded. The Court affirmed the principle that review proceedings are not a forum for re-arguing an appeal afresh or for introducing new factual contentions that were not raised or substantiated in the lower courts. Consequently, the Court found no valid grounds to exercise its review jurisdiction.
- Can a party introduce new factual pleas in review proceedings that were not raised in the lower courts?
- Is it permissible to re-argue an appeal on its merits within the scope of review proceedings?
- Does the failure to consider documents not present on the trial record constitute a ground for review?
ORDER
ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J. --These are five review petitions directed against the common judgment dated 29th October, 1986, in connected Civil Appeals No.330/83, 331/81, 332/83, 333/81 and 334/83. As a common argument was addressed by the learned counsel we propose to dispose of these petitions by this common order.
2. We have heard the learned counsel at length and considered his arguments. His main grievance is that the case of the petitioners (defendants in the suits) was not considered in the impugned judgment as their documents have not been referred to nor the arguments based thereon. In this connection learned counsel has referred to the following passage of the impugned judgment:-
"The appellants, on coming to know about these transfers moved the competent authorities in the Settlement Department and obtained orders that the PTO and PTD issued in favour of the respondents be cancelled vide order dated 15th November, 1969. It was thereafter found that no PTD or PTO had been issued in respect of units Nos.2257 and 2258, but such documents issued in respect of units Nos.2259 and 2260 were cancelled vide Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Multan's letter No. 3352-54/ Miscellaneous, dated 18th December, 1969, addressed to the transferees of property units Nos.2259 and 2260 in which it was stated that these units were "situated on Khasra No.610 which has been declared as non-evacuee property." According to the learned counsel Deputy Settlement Commissioner's letter dated 18th December, 1969, referred to in the passage quoted above was rendered ineffective as the Custodian by his order dated 1st January, 1970, had withdrawn his earlier letter dated 15th November, 1969, by which the transfers in favour of the petitioners were cancelled. Counsel submitted that this is a factual error apparent on the record. The argument is wholly baseless. In the first place the so-called letter of the Custodian dated 1st January, 1970, is not traceable on the record of these petitions. We have tried to locate it in the consolidated paper books of documents filed by the petitioners but it finds no place therein. We are not aware as to whether this document was tendered in evidence before the trial Court and learned counsel was unable to satisfy us on this point. A careful perusal of the judgments of the three courts below reveals that no reference has been made to this document. The other point urged by the learned counsel was that the properties in occupation of the petitioners are actually situated on Khasra No.610/1 which is admittedly evacuee property as held by various authorities in the Custodian and Settlement Departments. This is a wholly new case being sets up as such plea has not been raised in any of the courts below or at the time of the hearing of the appeal. It is not permissible for the petitioners to set up a new case in the review petitions. The case was all along fought by the petitioners on the basis that the plaintiffs were entitled only to a portion of Khasra No.610 which bears the Excise Department No.2261 and not the entire Khasra No.610. In any case what is being sought in these review petitions is a re-argument of the appeals afresh which is outside the scope of review proceedings.
3. After having considered the submissions of the learned counsel we find no ground to review the impugned judgment in these petitions. All the review petitions are accordingly dismissed.
S.Q./G-53/S Petitions dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- Malik JAHANGIR KHAN vs Syed SIBTUL HASSAN And OTHER 1990 CLC 1659