AHMED ALI And Another vs Mst. ALLAH DAEE And 27 Other
This matter concerns a review petition filed against the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 10-11-1985, which had refused to grant leave to appeal regarding concurrent findings of fact. The core legal question before the Court was whether a review petition could be entertained based on the discovery of allegedly new evidence—specifically, a certificate from India purportedly proving that Mst. Rabia died on 21-4-1907, contradicting previous evidence (Exh. D/2) accepted by all lower courts, which established her death date as 27-12-1949. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that this evidence could not have been procured earlier through the exercise of due diligence, given that the litigation had been pending since 1976. The Court affirmed that discovery of new evidence as a ground for review requires proof that such evidence was not available or discoverable despite due diligence during the original proceedings. Finding no substance in the petitioners' contentions regarding the new evidence, the Court refused to interfere with the established concurrent findings of fact.
- Can a review petition be entertained based on evidence that could have been procured earlier through due diligence?
- Does the discovery of new evidence justify reviewing a judgment based on concurrent findings of fact?
- Is a party entitled to reopen a case on the basis of new evidence if the litigation has been pending for a significant period?
ORDER
S. A. NUSRAT, J.-- The petitioners seek review of our judgment dated 10-11-1985 on the ground of discovery of an alleged piece of new evidence, namely, proof in the shapeof a certificate received from India showing that Mst. Rabia had died on 21-4-1907. In the proceedings; of all the Courts right upto the stage of High Court certificate Exh. D/2 was accepted as good piece of evidence showing that Mst. Rabia had died on 27-12-1949. This Court in the circumstances refused to grant leave on the question regarding the acceptance of the said document in the face of concurrent findings of fact recorded in the matter.
2. We are not satisfied with the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners that such a certificate, if at all genuine, could not have been precured earlier after due deligence when admittedly the proceedings in the case have been pending since 1976. We find no substance in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed.