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. 326 of 1967,
decided on 10th October 1967.
On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan , Lahore dated the 7th June 1967, in Letters Patent Appeal 1120 of 1966).
, Art. 98‑Question of fact High Court can rightly refuse to go into in writ jurisdiction.
Gul Nawaz Ahmad Khan Malik, Advocate, Supreme Court instructed by Masood Akhtar, Attorney for Petitioners.
Nasim Hasan Shah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Rashid Ahmad Choudhary, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Ghulam Mujtaba, Attorney for Respondent No. 4.
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
Date of hearing : 10th October 1967.
The main contention around which the dispute between the parties centered in this case was as to whether the petitioners Abdul Shakoor and others, or the respondent Ghulam Rasool had constructed the premises after it had been burnt. The Settlement authorities found eventually in favour of Ghulam Rasul, and decided to transfer the property to him. The petitioners moved the High Court of West Pakistan in writ jurisdiction unsuccessfully against the order passed by the Settlement authorities. They now seek Special Leave to Appeal.
The question as to who was responsible for the reconstruc tion of the building, was one of fact and therefore, within the; jurisdiction of the departmental authorities to decide. It was mainly on this ground that the High Court declined to interfere in this case, and in our opinion, rightly. The learned Counsel, for the petitioners, Mr. Gul Nawaz Ahmad Khan, tried to argue that the Settlement authorities had not gone into the allegations made by his clients to the effect that some of the documents produced in this case, had interpolations and forgeries in the writings evidenced by them. We are unable to accede to this contention as correct. There were several remands in this case and eventually, after considering all the evidence produced by the parties, the Settlement authorities gave their decision.
Learned counsel contended in the alternative that initially the disputants had put in a joint form for transfer of the pro perty to them, and therefore, the property should have been given to them jointly. This claim is untenable, as it is clear that after the submission of that form, both the parties made statements before the Settlement authorities claiming exclusive transfer of the property.
We see no ground for grant of Special Leave to Appeal and dismiss the petition.
Leave refused,
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer