Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 76/11 of 1983, decided on 4th February, 1984.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 16‑2‑1983 in R.S.A. No. 273/77).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Suit for pre‑emption ‑‑Special attorney of plaintiff making statement in trial Court that plaintiff wanted to compromise suit and case to be consigned to record‑‑Suit accordingly dismissed‑‑Statements on record supporting the judgments of Courts below‑‑Held, case not fit one for grant of leave to appeal.

Kh. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 4th February, 1984.

.‑‑ By this petition leave is sought to appeal against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 16‑2‑1983 passed in R.S.A. No. 273 of 1977.

2. Facts leading to this petition are that land measuring 80 Kanals and 7 Marlas in District Gujranwala was sold by one Mst. Latifi and others to Muhammad Ali respondent No.1 for an ostensible price of Rs.40,500 through a registered sale‑deed dated 2‑12‑1968. The petitioner being co‑sharer to the Khata and Patti claimed superior right of pre‑emption. On the ground he instituted a civil suit on 1‑1-1969 for possession of the said land through pre‑emption. The suit was instituted by the petitioner himself under his own signatures through his counsel Mr. M.A. Basit Advocate. The suit was contested by the vendee and proceedings continued upto 15‑9‑1971 when the suit was dismissed on the basis of a statement made by the counsel for the petitioner that the suit should be allowed to be withdrawn. Accordingly the trial Court dismissed the suit as withdrawn vide order dated 15‑‑9‑1971. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order which was dismissed by the learned District Judge. Gujranwala vide order dated 15‑3‑1977. Thereafter, the petitioner filed R.S. A. in the Lahore High Court which was dismissed vide the impugned order.

3.The learned High Court Judge while considering the points raised before him observed in the impugned order:‑

"The finding recorded by the learned District Judge, who decided the first appeal was to the effect that the appellant had appointed Muhammad Yusuf as his special attorney and that it was in pursuance of the instructions of the appellant, conveyed to the learned counsel through the sate attorney, that the learned counsel had withdrawn the pre‑emption suit. No misreading of evidence or any other defect justifying interference with the said finding was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned Advocate who had withdrawn the suit had appeared as a witness and stated on oath that he had withdrawn the suit as instructed by Muhammad Yusuf.

4. We have examined the finding of the learned High Court that the statements on record, support the impugned judgment. Mr. M. A. Basit, Advocate as P.W.3 stated that he had instituted a pre‑emption suit on behalf of Ali Nawaz plaintiff and Muhammad Yusuf used to appear for the plaintiff as his special attorney and was in possession of the power‑of‑attorney which he had seen and by dint of this power‑of ‑attorney he had the right to enter into a compromise and on 15‑9‑1971 Muhammad Yusuf informed him that the plaintiff wants to compromise and the case to be consigned to record. Accordingly he made a request to the Court that the suit be consigned to record. In view of this statement and the other statements on record, we do not consider this to be a fit case to grant leave. Leave refused and the petition is, consequently, dismissed.

S. Q. 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.