Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 77 of 1970, decided on 22nd April 1970.
(On appeal from the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 1st April 1970, in Civil Revision No. 290 of 1970 and C. M. L/C of 1970).
-----S. 101‑Burden of proof‑Issues Two pre‑emption suits brought on basis of two mutations‑Party pleading incorrectness of two mutations and alleging only one transaction of sale‑Issue framed whether there was only one transaction‑Held, no legitimate exception can be taken to issue as framed‑Burden of proof lies on party raising such plea.
Muhammad Asif, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Syed Wajid Hussain, Senior Attorney for Petitioner.
Parvez Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 22nd April 1970.
‑The respondent has brought two pre‑emption suits against the petitioner on the basis of two mutations. The petitioner is the vendee in respect of those two mutations. In the suits, the petitioner raised a plea that there was one transaction of sale and the two mutations are wrong. On the pleadings, the trial Court framed an issue whether there was only one transaction regarding the lands sold. The petitioner objected to this issue apparently on the apprehension that the same would place the onus on him and prayed for re‑framing the issue stating whether there were two transactions regarding the lands sold.
This prayer was refused by the trial Court. The petitioner came to the High Court in revision, but that Court refused to interfere. The order of the High Court refusing to interfere in revision is under challenge in this petition for special leave.
Admittedly, there are two mutations in respect of the lands under pre‑emption. It was the petitioner who raised the plea that there was one sale transaction and the two mutations are wrong. In this state of things no legitimate exception can be taken to the issue framed in the suit. Even otherwise, the question whether the transaction was one as alleged by the petitioner or whether there were two transactions in respect of the lands sold as claimed by the pre‑emptor, will have to be determined by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. We do not, therefore, find any substance in this petition.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Leave refused
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer