Mst. SIDDIQA And Others vs THESETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LANDS), MULTAN And Another
This matter arises from an application seeking clarification of a previous order of the Supreme Court dated 12-10-1983, specifically addressing whether Khasra No. 408 was part of the land in dispute alongside Khasra Nos. 409 and 410. The core legal question concerns the accurate reflection of the property in dispute and the scope of the Supreme Court's order upholding the High Court's judgment. The Court held that since its earlier order merely maintained the High Court's order dated 31-3-1980 without intending to add or subtract anything, the High Court's order and the factual recital therein—which referenced only Khasra Nos. 409 and 410—rule the field. The key principle laid down is that an order of the Supreme Court upholding a High Court decision carries no intention to alter the underlying factual matrix or property descriptions established by the High Court.
- Whether an order of the Supreme Court upholding a High Court judgment alters the factual recital of properties in dispute established by the High Court?
- Can a party seek clarification of an appellate court order to rectify a perceived mistaken inclusion of a property number?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-- This is an application for clarification of this Court's order, dated 12-10- 1983. It is submitted that the mention of Khasra No.408 alongwith Khasra Nos. 409 and 410 as the Khasra Numbers in dispute was a mistake because in point of fact only Khasra Nos.409 and 410 were in dispute but not Khasra No.408.
2. We may observe that this Court in its order dated 12th October, 1983 merely upheld the order of the High Court dated 31-3-1980. In the said order the facts were recited as under:- "The relevant facts of the case are that the land in dispute comprising Khasra Nos. 409 min and 410 min measuring about 2 Kanals along with other land, situated in village Qutabpur, District Multan."
3. The above recital of facts appears to support the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Khasra No. 408 was not in dispute between the parties.
4. Be that as it may we would only observe that this Court in its order dated 12-10-1983 had merely maintained the order of the Lahore High Court dated 31-3-1980 and it was not our intention either to add to it or subtract from it in any way.
5. Accordingly, the effect of the order of this Court dated 31-3-1980 is that the order of the High Court has been upheld and we clarify that the same rules the field.
6. With this clarification this application stands disposed of.