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. 687 of 1980, decided on 22nd December, 1980.
(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 18‑3‑1980 in Writ Petition No. 573 of 1980).
----S. 77‑Recovery of rent of crops‑‑‑Leave to appeal ‑‑‑ Case, on merits adequately dealt with at various stages in proceedings, no justification, held, existed for interference by Supreme Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal declined.
Sh. Abdul Sattar Zahid, Advocate and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on -Record for Petitioners.
S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 2.
Date of hearing : 22nd December, 1980.
Facts briefly stated are that suit filed by Shah Wali, respondent No. 2 herein, against the petitioners for recovery of Rs. 9,700 on account of rent of two crops of Kharif 1973 and Rabi 1974 was decreed by the Assistant Collector (Grade 1), Vehari on the basis of special oath taken by Shah Wali on the offer (made by peti tioners. Petitioners' appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector was dismissed by the Collector, Vehari and their revision application also met with the same fate at the hands of Additional Commis sioner, Multan. Petitioners then went up in revision application to the Member, Board of Revenue, but this was dismissed and the review application against that order was also rejected. The petitioners then finally challenged all these orders in Writ Petition No. 573 of 1980 in the Lahore High Court. This petition having failed they now seek special leave to appeal.
Shaikh Abdul Sattar Zahid, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition, submits that only one of the petitioners, namely Abdul Majid, had made the offer for the dismissal of the suit on special oath and the decree passed on the basis of the special oath is not binding on the other petitioners. Learned counsel also sought to challenge the decree on merits of the case.
After having gone through the record of the case, we find that the plea that petitioner Abdul Majid alone made the offer as to the disposal o the suit by special oath is falsified by the record. Since the pleas on merits of the case have been already fully and adequately dealt with at various stages in the proceedings there is no justification, whatsoever, for this Court to interfere.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer