NOOR MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and others
This matter arises from a review petition filed against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, seeking review on the ground that the law declared in a reported judgment regarding the necessity of mentioning the names of witnesses and the time, date, and place of making Talb-i-Muwathibat in the plaint was allegedly not followed. The core legal question is whether the dismissal of the suit based on the untrustworthiness of the witnesses warrants a review of the judgment. The court held that no case for review was made out because the petitioner was merely seeking a rehearing of the case, which is impermissible under review jurisdiction. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that review jurisdiction cannot be invoked for the mere rehearing of a matter where the evidence of witnesses was duly considered and disbelieved by the court.
- Whether a review petition is maintainable for the mere rehearing of a case where witnesses were disbelieved?
- Is it necessary to mention the names of witnesses and details of Talb-i-Muwathibat in the plaint according to the reviewed judgment?
ORDER
1. MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---Review is sought on the ground that law declared by this Court in a reported judgment that it was not necessary to mention in the plaint the names of witnesses before whom Talb-i-Muwathibat was made and also the date and place when it was made has not been followed. Argument has no force. It was held in the judgment under Review that witnesses examined by the petitioner were not trustworthy, therefore, their evidence was rightly disbelieved and the suit dismissed as such no case of review has been made out as the petitioner wants rehearing of the case which is not permissible in review jurisdiction. Dismissed.