Mst. MANZOOR BEGUM through Legal Heirs vs Mst. ALLAH RAKHI through Legal Heirs and another
This is a civil review petition filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking review of the court's earlier judgment dated 23-6-1993. The core legal questions involve whether an admission attributed to a party could be set aside in constitutional jurisdiction and whether the previous judgment would impede the petitioners from seeking a lawful reduction in land allotment alleged to be in excess of entitlement. The court held that the first ground merely reargued the merits already considered, and the second ground was misconceived as the impugned judgment strictly addressed the validity of the admission and subsequent orders. Consequently, no sufficient ground for review was made out. The key principle laid down is that a review petition cannot be used to re-litigate matters already considered on merits or to raise misconceived apprehensions regarding collateral matters not determined by the judgment.
- Can an admission attributed to a party be set aside in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does a judgment upholding the validity of an admission impede petitioners from seeking lawful reduction in excess land allotments?
- What constitutes a valid ground for review of a judgment under Pakistani law?
ORDER
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---Review of our judgment dated 23-6-1993 is sought on the grounds that the admission attributed to Mst. Rakhi could not be set aside in Constitutional jurisdiction. Besides, the judgment may impede the petitioners even in the matter of seeking lawful reduction in the allotment of Mst. Rakhi which was, according to the learned counsel,, admittedly in excess of her entitlement.
2. The first ground concerns the merits already considered. The second is misconceived, because the impugned judgment deals with the validity of the admission and the orders passed thereafter.
3. No ground for review made out. Dismissed.