Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 915 of 1975, decided on 15th February, 1981.

(On the appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 15^th September, 1975 in R.S.A. 103 of 1975)

-- Art. 185(3)-Special leave to appeal-Question whether property in dispute land or a shop-A question of fact-Property in dispute concurrently found by lower Courts to be land-No omission or misreading of evidence in arriving at such finding pointed out-Interference with such finding declined.-[Question of fact].

-- Art. 185(3)-Leave to appeal-Plea raised before Supreme Court not raised in any of Courts below-Plea not allowed to be raised for first time before Supreme Court specially when adjudication on point would depend upon thrashing out of certain factual aspects of matter.

Maitfuaul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 15th February, 1981.

-Ghulam Siddique plaintiff"/respondent filed a suit for possession of the property in dispute herein which was decreed by the learned Civil Judge on 17th September, 1971. The present petitioner/vendee filed an appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 15th January, 1972. The peti tioner/vendee filed a second appeal being R. S. A. 103/72 which also met fate and was dismissed by the High Court on 15th September, 1975. The petitioner has now come up in a petition for special leave to appeal to this Court.

2. It is argued that the property in dispute was not land" and was rather a "shop" about which no suit of pre-emption could have been filed. This is a point of fact on which there are concurrent findings o three Courts below and we have not been pointed out any omission o A misreading of evidence so as to warrant interference by this, Court. The next point argued was that the suit of the plaintiff/respondent was time in barred. It is, however, conceded, that no such plea was raised in any of the courts below and in these circumstances, we are not prepared to allow this point to be raised for the first time before us especially when its adjudication would depend upon thrashing out of certain factual aspects of the matter which cannot be attended to except by leading evidence thereon. The point in the circumstances is not such which can be said to be apparent I, on the face of the record and is hereby repelled.

3. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.

Petition dismissed

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.