MANZOOR HUSSAIN GHAZI Versus KISHWAR SULTAN JEHAN BEGUM
This matter concerns miscellaneous petitions filed by the petitioner seeking the recall of a prior Supreme Court order dated 20-10-1985, which had dismissed the petitioner's earlier Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 490-R of 1983 as infructuous. The petitioner argued that he was entitled to a direction compelling the Chief Settlement Commissioner to transfer specific property to him, claiming he was unable to adequately present his case during the previous hearing due to short notice. The core legal question was whether a miscellaneous petition could be used to challenge and recall a final order of the Court without following the formal procedure for filing a review petition. The Court held that the miscellaneous petitions were procedurally defective as they effectively sought a review of a final order without complying with the prescribed rules for review petitions. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the petitioner could not be joined as a party or substituted in a withdrawn review petition when the original relief sought by the review petitioner was distinct from the petitioner's own claims. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions.
- Can a miscellaneous petition be used to challenge a final order of the Supreme Court without filing a formal review petition?
- Does the withdrawal of a review petition by the original petitioner render a third party's application to join that review as a party infructuous?
- Is a party entitled to be substituted as a petitioner in a review petition if their claimed relief differs from the relief originally sought by the review petitioner?
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J. ‑‑These are Miscellaneous Petitions requesting for recall of the order of this Court dated 20‑10‑1985 by which Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.490‑R of 1983 filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that it had been rendered infructuous. The reason for which it was held to have become infructuous was that Civil Review Petition No.25‑L of 1982 filed by Mst. Kishwar Sultan Jehan Begum, first respondent herein, was dismissed as withdrawn by her, and since petitioner had sought to be joined as party in that Civil Review Petition, his request was rendered in fructuous with the dismissal of the Review Petition. The order of this Court dated 20‑10‑1985 reads as under:
2. "Learned counsel for the petitioner requests for grant of permission to withdraw the review petition.
3. Permission is granted and the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
4. In view of dismissal of the review petition, the Miscellaneous Petition No.490‑R of 1983 has been rendered infructuous."
5. Petitioner who appears in person in support of these Miscellaneous Petitions however, submits that he is entitled to a direction being issued to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for the transfer of the property in question to him as it is available for transfer, and he could not press this request on 20‑10‑1985 when his Miscellaneous Petition No.490‑R of 1983 was dismissed for the reason that he had received notice of the hearing on 17‑10‑1985 and since the time available was very short, he could not engage a. counsel.
6. We explained to the petitioner that these Miscellaneous Petitions in fact tantamount to a .petition for review of the order of this Court dated 20‑10‑1985, and since he has not filed a Review Petition in accordance with the rules, the Miscellaneous Petitions must be dismissed on this ground alone. We also explained to him that the best that could be done for him on 20‑10‑1985 was to join him as the party the Review Petition No.25‑L of 1982 if it were to be heard on merits, but since the petitioner in the Review Petition had prayed for grant of permission to withdraw that petition and her request was granted and the Review Petition was dismissed, he could not be joined as a party, nor could he be substituted as a petitioner in that Review Petition as none of the reliefs sought by Mst. Kishawar Sultan Jehan Begum was prayed for by him in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.490‑R of 1983. Petitioner, however, insisted upon his request being granted for the recall of the order of this Court dated 20‑10‑1985 but we' regret we cannot accept his request for the reasons given above. These Miscellaneous Petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
7. M . I . / M‑523 / S Petitions dismissed.