MUHAMMAD HANIF and anothers vs SULTAN
This review petition was filed against a Supreme Court judgment dated 26-11-1992, challenging the Court's examination of factual grounds that were allegedly not argued before the High Court, and disputing the Court's appraisal of evidence regarding inconsistencies. The petitioners contended that the Supreme Court was restricted from considering arguments not advanced in the High Court. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, holding that the mere fact that an argument was not orally advanced in the High Court does not preclude the Supreme Court from considering it, provided the ground was raised in the memorandum of appeal. The Court affirmed its constitutional duty to ensure complete justice, which necessitates an overall view of the case, including all aspects of the record. Furthermore, the Court found no merit in the challenge to its appraisal of evidence, noting that the petitioners failed to provide a valid rebuttal to the reasoning provided in the original judgment. Consequently, the Court held that no case for review was established and dismissed the petition.
- Can the Supreme Court consider a legal ground in an appeal that was raised in the memorandum of appeal but not orally argued in the High Court?
- Does the Supreme Court's duty to do complete justice allow it to examine all aspects of a case regardless of whether they were argued in the lower court?
ORDER
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J. ---Review of our judgment dated 26-11-1992 is sought on the grounds that the respondent having not agitated in the High Court any of the factual grounds the Supreme Court could not have examined it at all and that there was plausible explanation for the inconsistencies taken note of and appearing in the evidence and they could not be made the basis for dismissing the claim of the petitioners.
2. It is not denied that the ground not argued in the High Court was in fact taken in the Memorandum of appeal. There was no express mention that it was given up. What is recorded in the High Court judgment is that no other argument was advanced. The Court at the apex which has a constitutional duty to do complete justice cannot be inhibited by any such restraint as is suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It has an abiding duty to attend to all the aspects and to take an overall view of the case in dispensing justice.
3. As regards the appraisal of evidence and the inconsistencies appearing therein, the Court has fully taken note of them and the learned counsel has no answer to what is made the basis of the judgment in appraising the evidence in paras 3 and 4.
4. No case for review is made out and the Review Petition is dismissed.
Review . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 8 cases
- Messrs IRIS COMMUNICATIONS (PVT.) LTD vs AHMAD KHALID 2019 MLD 772
- Messrs. CIM Shipping Inc vs Tausif Ahmed and another 2018 SHC 611, 2019 PLC 121
- Dr. Pir Muhammad Khan vs Khuda Bukhsh, etc 2015 P.S.C. 1239
- Dr. PIR MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus KHUDA BUKHSH 2015 SCMR 1243
- MUHAMMAD ALI and 7 others vs Mst. HUMERA FATIMA and 2 others 2013 SCMR 178
- MUHAMMAD NASIR MAHMOOD Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Law, Justice and Human Rights Division, Islamabad 2009 PLD 107
- Sheri C.B.C. and others vs K.B.C.A. and others 2003 C.L.R. 453
- SHENI C.B.B. and others vs K.B.C.A. and others 2003 YLR 1086