ABDUL MALIK ETC. vs MUHAMMAD GHALIB ETC.S
This is an application for review of the Supreme Court's order dismissing a petition for special leave to appeal, which had challenged the High Court's judgment maintaining a decree for redemption of mortgagee rights in land based on an acknowledgment of mortgage made in 1954 by the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest. The core legal question was whether the interpretation of evidence regarding an acknowledgment versus attestation on a Patwari's report constituted an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review. The Supreme Court held that the mere fact that the court may have taken a different view of the points urged is no ground to interfere in review, especially when no error on the face of the record or new evidence was shown. The key principle laid down is that a wrong view of points urged or mere disagreement with the court's earlier interpretation of evidence does not constitute an error on the face of the record sufficient to justify a review of the judgment.
- Does a mere wrong view of the points urged by a petitioner constitute an error on the face of the record for the purposes of review?
- Is the interpretation of a seal on a Patwari's report as an acknowledgment rather than an attestation a sufficient ground for review?
- Can a review petition be entertained on the basis of facts and evidence that were already within the knowledge of the petitioner during the earlier proceedings?
ORDER
1. WAHEEDUDIN AHMAD, J.-This is an application for review of the Order of this Court dismissing the petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 562/74 dated 28-5-75.
2. The dispute between the parties is in respect of mortgagee rights in the land in dispute. A suit was filed on 28-9-57. It was held by the trial Court that Mota Khan, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner In 1954 had acknowledged the factum of mortgage The High Court has held this view to be correct and has maintained the decree- for redemption which was challenged by the petitioner in the above-mentioned application for special leave to appeal.
3. Mr. Raja Mohd. Muzaffar Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the question whether the seal on the report of the Patwari was an acknowledgment or an attestation requires further consideration. He contended that the interpretation given by this Court on 28-5-75 is erroneous.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that there is no error on the face of the record, nor the petitioner has referred to any additional evidence or any facts which were not within his knowledge in this petition. Mere fact that this Court has taken a wrong view of the point---s urged by the petitioner is no ground to interfere in review. We do not consider this as a fit case for interference. The petition is dis--missed. 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.