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‑R of 1981, decided on 3rd March 1982.
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 16‑6‑1981 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, in Civil Revision No. 113 of 1981).
---Art. 185(3‑Leave to appeal‑Petitioner's counsel unable to explain any of circumstances operating as estoppel against petitioner‑Civil Court even if supposed to have had no jurisdiction in matter, finding of fact by all Courts below being against petitioner, no justification, held, made out to grant leave to appeal.
Syed Muhammad Shahudul Huque, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 3rd March 1982.
Leave to appeal has been sought from the judgment dated 16‑6‑1981 of the Lahore High Court whereby a civil revision arising out of a settlement case, was dismissed.
The petitioner filed a civil suit challenging the transfer of the house in question to respondent No 1 in whose favour its original transferee had made a surrender of his rights. The petitioner's plea was that respondent No. 1 was neither in possession of the house nor did she applied for it. It was also complained by the petitioner that he had filed a transfer form but it had not been disposed of. One of the pleas raised from respondents' side was of estoppel. The petitioner, it is noted in the appellate Court's judgment, had in reply to a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compen sation and Rehabilitation) Act, admitted respondent No. 1 as his landlady. The same was his position in the ejectment proceedings which culminated in the dismissal of his Leave to Appeal Petition No. 155‑R of 1981 today. Till 1979 the year of institution of the suit, the petitioner had never objected to the transfer of the house to respondent No. 1 (landlady) or her predecessors-in‑interest. It may be mentioned here that the P. T. D. was issued to respon dent No. 1 in 1961 while the suit was instituted in 1979. Keeping this and all other facts and circumstances of this case in view, the petitioner's suit was dismissed. His appeal failed and the same was the fate of the revision filed in the High Court. . The petitioner then moved an application for leave to appeal.
The learned counsel has not been able to explain any of the circumstances which operate as estoppel against the petitioner, even it be assumed for the sake of argument that the civil Court had jurisdiction in the matter (though the issue in that behalf was wrongly decided on concession) the finding of fact by all the learned Courts below are against the petitioner. No justification has been made to grant leave to appeal. This petition 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