ISLAMUDDIN GHORI vs ABDUL GHAFOOR and others
This review petition challenges a Supreme Court judgment that had allowed an appeal and remanded a case to a government-notified officer for the disposal of a transfer application. The petitioner argued that the original Letters Patent Appeal (L.P.A.) filed before the High Court was incompetent under the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972, asserting that the initial decision by the Single Judge should have remained intact, thereby barring the subsequent proceedings on the principle of res judicata. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the petitioner failed to raise the objection regarding the competence of the L.P.A. during the hearing of the main appeal, despite having the opportunity to do so. The Court emphasized that a party cannot re-agitate arguments in a review petition that should have been advanced during the original hearing. Consequently, the Court found no valid grounds for interference with the previous judgment, as the petitioner's failure to defend the appeal or challenge its competence at the appropriate time precluded them from doing so in review proceedings.
- Can a party raise an objection regarding the competence of an appeal for the first time in a review petition?
- Does the failure to defend an appeal at the hearing stage preclude the party from re-agitating arguments in a subsequent review petition?
- Is a party who was present during an appeal but failed to challenge its competence permitted to challenge it later in review proceedings?
- Section 2(2), Act XIV of 1975
- Section 3(2), Law Reforms Ordinance 1972
ORDER
' ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.--This petition seeks review of this Court's judgment, dated 27-10-1984 whereby the appeal was allowed and the case was remanded to the officer notified by the Provincial Government under section 2(2) of Act XIV of 1975, for disposal of the application for transfer filed by the appellant in accordance with law.
2. We have heard the learned counsel at some length. His main contention in support of the petition is that L.P.A. No,62 of 1975 filed by the appellant before the Division Bench of the High Court was not competent under section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 and, therefore, the adjudication made in the writ petition by the learned Single Judge on merits stood intact with the result that the second writ petition filed by the appellant was barred on the principle of res judicata.
3. We find no substance in the contention advanced by the learned counsel as in our opinion it does not furnish the basis for interference with the judgment in review jurisdiction. It may be pointed out that the petitioner failed to appear and defend the appeal at the hearing when the main appeal was disposed of. Having lost that opportunity, when perhaps he could have been permitted to raise the contention now advanced, he cannot be allowed to re-agitate and seek to advance arguments in this review petition, which ought to have been advanced at the hearing of the main appeal. Additionally, the petitioner, who was a party to L.P.A. No,62 of 1975, did not raise this objection at the time of decision of the said L.P.A. He cannot, therefore, now be heard to challenge the competence of the said appeal.
' There is no ground made out for review the judgment impugned in this review petition which is accordingly dismissed.