ZARIN And Others vs PIR MUHAMMAD And Other
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a review petition filed against a previous judgment of the Court. The main contention raised by the petitioner was that the judgment contained an apparent error of law by holding that the High Court lacked the power to record additional evidence in its revisional jurisdiction. Upon hearing counsel, the Supreme Court clarified that its earlier judgment did not hold that the High Court had no power to record additional evidence, but rather determined that the High Court was not justified in doing so under the specific circumstances of the case. The Court emphasized that the existence of a power is distinct from the justification for its exercise. Furthermore, the Court noted that the remaining grounds urged by the petitioner merely constituted an impermissible attempt to reargue the appeal at the review stage. Consequently, finding no merit in the contentions, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petition.
- Does the High Court have the power to record additional evidence in revisional jurisdiction?
- Is the justification for exercising a jurisdiction distinct from the existence of that power?
- Can a review petition be used to reargue the original appeal?
ORDER
ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.--The main contention in support of this review petition is that there is an error of law on the face of the judgment in so far as this Court held that the High Court had no power to record additional evidence in revisional jurisdiction. Reference has been made to paragraph 14 of the judgment sought to be reviewed.
2. After hearing the learned counsel at some length we find no force in this contention. There is nothing in the judgment of this Court holding that the High Court had no power to record additional evidence, although it has been held that in the circumstances of this case and for reasons mentioned in the judgment the Court was not justified to record additional evidence. It is needless to emphasize that the justification for exercise of power or jurisdiction is clearly different --from having no power or jurisdiction to do a thing. The other grounds' urged were merely an attempt to reargue the appeal which is not ill permissible at the review stage.
3. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this review petition which is accordingly dismissed.