Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 232 of 1982, decided on 29th May, 1982.

(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 18‑1‑1982, passed in Writ Petition No. 7366/80).

‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Leave to appeal‑District Judge having jurisdiction to decide question and such decision attaining finality nevertheless High Court entertaining writ petition against such order and dismissing same through a well reasoned judgment‑Leave to appeal petition, in circumstances, held, misconceived and dismissed‑Court observa tion: Practice unfortunately has arisen to challenge decisions of Courts through constitutional petitions on frivolous grounds requiring re appraisal of evidence when none envisaged by law.

Ch. Muhammad Yaqub Sidhoo, Advocate Supreme Court with Iqbal Ahmd Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 29th May, 1982.

The facts giving rise to this petition are, briefly; that Sardar Ahmad (petitioner No. 2) purchased 30 Kanals of land from Rehmat Ali, which he subsequently sold to Hayat Khan. Rehmat Al: brought a suit against them for declaration to the effect that he had not made any sale in favour of Sardar Ahmad (petitioner No. 2). The said Rehmat Ali died during the pendency of the suit. An application was moved to implead respondents (Nos. 1 to 3) as legal representatives of Rehmat Ali. This was allowed by the trial Court. This order was, however, challenged by the petitioner through a revision petition before the Additional District Judge, Sargodha, which was dismissed on 25‑5‑1980 on the ground that it did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Against this order the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed vide the impugned order.

2. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Additional District Judge had omitted to consider material portions of the evidence. Admittedly, the learned Additional District Judge had the jurisdiction toy decide this question and his decision attained finality. Unfortunately, a practice has arisen to challenge decisions of Courts of law through constitutional petitions, on frivolous grounds, requiring reappraisal of evidence when none is envisaged by the relevant law. We find that the learned Judge in Chamber has rightly dismissed the petition though a well reasoned judgment notwithstanding the fact that the writ petition was, in fact, not maintainable. This petition, too, is misconceived and is dismissed as having no merit.

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.