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. 163 of 1981, decided on 10th August, 1981.
(On appeal from the Judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated
22-11-1980 in S. R. No. 103 of 1969).
- Ss. 10 & 11 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 11- Allotment, cancellation of-Resjudicata-Contention that High Court misread record in concluding order of cancellation of allotment having been set aside-Correctness of statement of fact made in impugned order-Neither open to doubt nor any justification available for Supreme Court to hold an inquiry in such regard in leave to appeal proceedings Proceedings on -second mukhbari application filed by petitioner in peculiar circumstances of case, also, held, hit by bar of general resjuicata.
Sh. Hamid Mukhtar, Advocate Muhammad Hassan Advocate and Sh. Abdul Karim Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 10th August, 1981.
.-Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 22-11-1980 of the Lahore High Court whereby a settlement revision arising out of a land settlement case which was filed by the respondent No. 2 was allowed. The petitioner was an informer with regard to the land settled (though according to the petitioner only proposed and verified) in favour of respondent No. 2 against verified rural clam. The Mukhbari application succeeded mainly on the ground that the settlement was illegal, because it was against rural claim of urban land. The respondents' challenge in the High Court against the cancellation was allowed in its revisional jurisdiction on the land settlement side. The petitioner (the informer) has now sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court.
Learned counsel has pointed out that there was an earlier Mukhbari application by a different person which was allowed in 1963 (the petitioner's application was made in 1968). And, because the order of cancellation passed in 1963 was never challenged by the respondents, it attained finality, therefore, the High Court should not have allowed the respondents' revision petition. We notice that the High Court .in the impugned judgment considered the effect of the order passed in 1963 and found that the same having been set aside by a Settlement Commissioner on 27-4-1968, the argument was not available to the present petitioner.
Learned counsel in this behalf has contended that the High Court misrea the record in coming to the conclusion that the order of cancellation o 4-7-1963 was set aside on 27-4-1968. After hearing the learned counsel o this aspect of the matter, we do not feel inclined to doubt the correct of the statement of fact made in the impugned order nor there is any justify action for this Court now to hold an enquiry in this behalf.
Learned counsel then contended that the order passed on the second Mukhbari application filed by the petitioner was not liable to be set aside b the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction, because it did not suffer fro any illegality or impropriety. We do not agree with the learned counsel. Apart from the very valid consideration which weighed with the learn Judges in the High Court, we are of the view that the proceedings on the second Mukhbari application filed by the petitioner would, in the peculia circumstances of this case, be hit by the bar of general result judicator. On either view, there is no force in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer