Citation Name: 2023 MLD 2003 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case AMJAD ALI vs SECRETARY PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2023 MLD 2003 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case AMJAD ALI VS SECRETARY PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING, KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA S. 114 & O. XLVII, R. 1--- Review--- Grounds--- Judicial pronouncement, review of---Earlier constitutional petitions were filed by the petitioners regarding regularization of their service---Said petitions were allowed subject to certain condition/limitation i.e. they shall not however claim arrears of salaries or other back benefits for the service they had rendered on contract basis before regularization---High Court, while concluding the said order, emphasized the words incorporated in last portion of the judgment (regarding condition/ limitation) by underlining the same---Later, the petitioners again moved application before the High Court and prayed for deletion of the underlined words contending that the said underlined words were liable to be corrected being a result of accidental slip or omission---High Court, however, directed that the application be converted into review petitions---Validity---Record (judgment-in-question and subsequent notification) showed that the order was actually passed subject to the condition/limitation (for not claiming back-benefits)---Respondents/ authorities had assailed said judgment and order and the Supreme Court had set-aside the same; thus, the very foundation on which the matter-in-hand was allowed no longer existed---No case for review was made out--- Review petitions were dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 MLD 2003 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case AMJAD ALI VS SECRETARY PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING, KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA S. 114 & O. XLVII, R. 1---Supreme Court Rules 1980, O. XXVI, R. 1---Judgment passed in constitutional petition---Review---Scope---Section 114 & O. XLVII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, enunciate three grounds for review: (i) discovery of new facts/materials/evidence; (ii) mistake or error on the face of record, or (iii) for any other sufficient cause---Power of review is expressly conferred by a Statute, whose exercise is subject to only those grounds which the Statute provides and which is exercised in exceptional cases only---Judicial pronouncement is a serious enterprise, which needs not be done away with glibly---Aggrieved person cannot be allowed to raise those grounds which were available to him at the time of hearing of the main case/appeal but he did not press it at that point of time---Review petition can not be equated or treated as hearing the main appeal or revision, as the case may be---It has to be restricted to the newly discovered facts or any illegality/mistake/error which is floating on the face of record.

Citation Name: 2023 MLD 2003 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case AMJAD ALI vs SECRETARY PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING, KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA S — 2023 MLD 2003 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 MLD