MUHAMMAD HANIF vs SAMAR GUL And Other
This matter concerns a review petition filed against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 12th September 1985, which had previously determined that a fresh period of limitation accrued to the plaintiffs under Section 19 of the Limitation Act 1908. The petitioner contended that the documents relied upon to establish acknowledgment of liability were not signed in accordance with the statutory requirements. The Court examined the nature of the memos issued by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, noting that these documents, which led to mutations in the revenue record, effectively acknowledged the Government's status as a mortgagee. The Court held that the Chief Settlement Commissioner acted as an agent for the Central Government, rendering the memos binding acknowledgments in writing. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner had failed to raise the issue of the sufficiency of this evidence during the original appeal proceedings. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioner could not re-argue the matter at the review stage, dismissing the petition for lack of substance.
- Can a party re-argue the sufficiency of evidence in a review petition if the issue was not raised during the original appeal?
- Do memos issued by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner acknowledging government rights constitute an acknowledgment in writing under the Limitation Act 1908?
- Does the Chief Settlement Commissioner act as an agent for the Central Government regarding the administration of evacuee land rights?
- Section 19, Limitation Act 1908
ORDER
ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.--By this petition review of this Court's judgment in Civil Appeal No. 28-P of 1984, dated 12th September, 1985, has been sought.
2. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the documents on the basis of which this Court held that a fresh period of limitation accrued to the plaintiffs under section 19 of the Limitation Act, were not signed as required by that provision of law. On a perusal of the judgment, however, we find that in support of the plea of acknowledgment, reliance was placed on two memos dated 18th December, 1959 and 22nd April, 1960, issued by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, as a result of which mutation was effected in the revenue record admitting that the Government was claiming only mortgagee's rights. Apparently as the evacuee's rights in land vested in the Central Government and were administered by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, it was held that the latter acted as the agent for the Government. The effect was that memos issued by him were binding on the Government as acknowledgment in writing.
Apparently these memos were issued under the signature of the Chief Land Commissioner.
Therefore, there is no substance in the contention advanced.
3. In any case as expressly observed in the judgment the question of sufficiency of this evidence as acknowledgment of liability was not raised on behalf of the respondents in the appeal (the present petitioner). The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to re-argue the same matter at review stage.
4. After hearing the learned counsel at length we find no substance in this review petition which is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- Muhammad Yousaf vs Karam Khan 2011 C.L.R 448
- PAKISTAN LAWYERS FORUM and otherss vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others 2004 PLD Lahore 145