Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special1eave to Appeal No. .273 of 1975, decided on 25th October, 1980.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 23‑12‑1974 in R. S. A 498 of 1974). .

‑‑Art. 185(3)‑Leave to appeal‑Objection to jurisdiction‑Question about lack of jurisdiction of Courts raised for first time in support of petition for leave‑Leave to examine, such question, held, cannot be granted.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 25th October, 1980.

‑The dispute in this petition for leave relates to an ihata in Bahawalnagar and on the footing that it was owned by one Kartar Singh, an evacuee, the petitioner bases his claim under Settlement Scheme No. VII. But, as the ihata was transferred by the Settlement authorities to the respondent, he challenged this transfer in a declaratory suit which was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Chishtian. It is not surprising that this suit was dismissed on 24‑3‑1973. The petitioner, therefore, 'challenged this judgment of 24‑3‑1973 in an appeal in the District Court, which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Bahawalnagar on 4‑6‑1974. The petitioner then filed a second appeal in the Lahore High Court which was dismissed in limine on 23‑12‑1974. Hence this petition for leave.

In dismissing the petitioner's second appeal the learned Judge of the High Court pointed out that the Courts below had come "to a concurrent finding of fact that the ihata in suit was never transferred to Kartar Singh, evacuee. "This concurrent finding of fact is not shown to be displaced in any manner whatsoever. The appeal is without merit and is dismissed as such, in limine.

Learned counsel did not attempt to, show that there was any error of law in the concurrent findings of the three Courts that the ihata had never been transferred to Kartar Singh as claimed by the petitioner. He, however, submitted that as the question was of the status of the property, the Civil Judge should have referred this question to the Custodian under section 41 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957, and therefore, the, Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to decide this question. But, this question about the jurisdiction of the Courts is being raised for the first time in support of a petition for leave, and we cannot in accordance with our practice grant leave to examine a question which could have been but was not raised in the three Courts below.

The petition is without 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.