Limitation Act 1908 (PREAMBLE) 2015 PLD 247 SUPREME-COURT


P L D 2015 Supreme Court 247


Present Jawwad S. Khawaja, Ejaz Afzal Khan and Qazi Faez Isan, JJ


MUHAMMAD KHALIQ (decd.) through Legal Heirs—Petitioners




GUL AFZAL KHAN and others—Respondents

Civil Review Petition No.281 of 2014 in Civil Appeal No.140 of 2005, decided on 21st January, 2015..

(Against judgment of this Court dated 2-6-2014 passed in C.A.No.140 of 2005).

Raja Muhammad Irshad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Safdar Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 21st January, 2015.


JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.—This petition seeks review of our order dated 2-6-2014 whereby Civil Appeal No. 140 of 2005, filed by petitioner Muhammad Khaliq (now represented by his L.Rs), was dismissed.

2. We have gone through the review petition and note that no such ground has been urged which would justify review of our order dated 2-6-2014. It has been repeatedly asserted in the grounds of the review petition that a relevant issue as to wrong entries in the revenue record was not framed by the trial Court. For good reasons discussed in our judgment, this submission which was made at the hearing of the appeal, was rejected. Para 2 of the judgment under review is reproduced as under:–

“Learned counsel for the appellants firstly argued that it was the duty of the trial Court to frame an issue on the question raised in para.5 of the plaint that the entries in the revenue record had been fraudulently made in the year 1966. The evidence of the witnesses has been examined by the Courts below and it has also been correctly observed that presumption of correctness attaches to the revenue record. Furthermore, we note that the witnesses of the plaintiffs themselves acknowledged that they had participated in the proceedings of survey/bandobast. When faced with this, learned counsel for the appellants contended that they were illiterate. This has not been found to be a sufficient base for interference in the longstanding entries of the revenue record”.

3. An attempt was made by learned counsel for the petitioner to reargue the entire case, even in respect of the aforesaid questions which have adequately been discussed and decided in our judgment.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner then made a submission that fresh documentary evidence from the revenue record has been dug up by the petitioner and needs to be placed on record. No such documentary evidence has been placed on file. We are afraid this course and conduct cannot be allowed because there are other stringent conditions which apply in cases of review. In the absence of documentary evidence sought to be placed on file, we are not, at all, convinced as to the relevance of such missing documents or that the same were unavailable at the trial stage or at any subsequent stage before the hearing of this petition today. In our view this is a frivolous and untenable submission.

5. Learned counsel then stated that the cause of justice in this case will suffer because the petitioner will be deprived of his valuable rights. First of all we may add that for reasons noted above we find no basis to hold that the petitioner will suffer or that he will be deprived of his valuable rights. It may be added that laws such as the law relating to review or other laws such as the Civil Procedure Code or the Limitation Act etc. have a rationale. Such laws are always made for the furtherance of the collective public good and if individuals suffer because of such laws, it is but a natural and logical consequence of protecting the larger public good for the purpose of bringing an end to litigation particularly through review petitions, which are frivolous.

6. We have noted that review petitions are increasingly being filed as a matter of routine. As a consequence, the certificate required under Order XXVI, Rules 4 and 5 is given as a matter of course by the learned Advocates without application of mind. Statistics provided by the Office show that 1324 review petitions were filed in 2013 and 2014. We also note that a certificate has been given in the present case by the learned counsel to the effect that “according to law and established practice of this Hon’ble Court it is a fit case for review …”. Far from being a fit case for review, we find that the Law and established practice of this Court demonstrates that this is a frivolous petition where a certificate in terms of Order XXVI, Rule 4 has been filed by the learned counsel in a mechanical and unthinking manner. Such practice is to be deprecated in the interest both of the litigant and the legal system and also to further the Constitutional imperative of ensuring expeditious and inexpensive justice.

7. This review petition being without merit is, therefore, dismissed with costs.

MWA/M-10/SC Petition dismissed.

Exit mobile version