Moulvi ABDUL AZIZ KHAN vs Nawab SARFRAZ ALI KHAN
These review petitions were filed against this Court's order dismissing earlier civil petitions, on the ground that the High Court had allegedly mistaken Mutation No. 1077 for the sale mutation when it was actually an inheritance mutation, while the true sale mutation was No. 1107. The core legal question was whether a factual mis-description regarding mutation numbers in the lower court's judgment warrants a review of this Court's order. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that no ground for review was made out because the point had neither been taken in the petitions for leave to appeal nor argued at the initial hearing, and in any event, the error in the High Court's order amounted to nothing more than a mere mis-description that had no bearing on the outcome. The key principle laid down is that minor factual mis-descriptions not raised at the appropriate stage do not constitute sufficient grounds for the review of a final order.
- Whether a review petition is maintainable on a factual point not raised in the original petition for leave to appeal or during its hearing?
- Does a mere mis-description of a mutation number by the High Court constitute a sufficient ground for review of the Supreme Court's order?
ORDER
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.--In these to petitions filed fur review of this Court's order, dated 23-8-1984 dismissing Civil Petitions Nos. 883 and 884 of 1981, it is urged that the High Court had mistaken Mutation No. 1077 sanctioned on 15th May, 1964 to be mutation of the sale in question but the said mutation was in fact of inheritance and not of the sale. Learned counsel points out that the sale mutation was No. 1107 sanctioned on 31st July, 1964 and urges that the error which occurred in the High Court had been carried forward to this Court.1 No such point had been taken in the Petitions for Leave to Appeal nor argued before this Court during the hearing of those petitions. So far this Court is concerned, the sale mutation had been correctly noted as being No. 1107 sanctioned on 31st July, 1964. In any case nothing turns on it because the error in the order of the High Court is nothing more than a mis-description.
2. After hearing learned counsel we feel satisfied that no case is made out for review. The petitions are dismissed.