MAUJ DIN through Legal Heirs and others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION and others
This matter concerns a review petition filed against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the calculation of Produce Index (P.I.) Units in a land settlement dispute. The core legal question was whether the previous judgment contained an error apparent on the face of the record concerning the calculation of P.I. Units in relation to the land area, thereby justifying a rehearing of the matter. Upon reviewing the record with the assistance of counsel, the Court determined that the calculation of P.I. Units was accurate and consistent with the evidentiary record. The Court held that the petitioner was essentially seeking a rehearing to reopen settled factual determinations, which is not permissible under review jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, finding no error on the face of the record. However, the Court exercised its power to correct a clerical error in the original judgment, directing that the Khata number mentioned as 17 be rectified to 19. The principle established is that review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to re-litigate settled factual findings or re-calculate evidence absent a patent error.
- Can a review petition be utilized to reopen settled factual determinations regarding the calculation of Produce Index Units?
- Is a rehearing permissible when a petitioner alleges an error in calculation that is not apparent on the face of the record?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to correct clerical errors in a judgment during the hearing of a review petition?
1. MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---We have gone through the record with the assistance of Mr. Taqi Ahmed Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners and Mr. A.R. Shaukat, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the respondents. After perusal of the relevant material available on the record, it transpired that the calculation in the terms of P.I. Units given in the judgment under review is correct in accordance with the entries of the said record. The petitioner actually wants rehearing to reopen the matter relating to calculation of P.I. Units in relation to area, which is not permissible. No case of mistake on the face of record as alleged in this petition has been made out.
2. It may, however, be observed that during hearing of this petition it was noticed that in the judgment under review number of Khata from where the land of the respondents is to be cancelled has been recorded as No,17 whereas its correct number is 19, therefore, Khata No,19 shall be read instead of 17 in the judgment and, subject to above modification, this petition is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- Sheikh Muhammad Anwar and 04 Others vs Judge Banking Court and another 2024 LHC 297, 2024 PLJ Lahore 192, 2024 CLD 724