Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.211‑P of 1983, decided on 29th November, 1983.

(Against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 9‑4‑1983, passed in Civil Revision No. 245/82).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Petitioner unable to raise any substantial question of law requiring determination by Supreme Court nor pointing out any flaw in impugned judgment of High Court‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.

Mian Muhammad Younis, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 29th November, 1983.

.‑‑ Bilal Khan petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court, dated 9‑4‑1983, dismissing his civil revision in relation to a suit filed by Munawar Khan respondent in his representative capacity on behalf of the Village Proprietary Body, challenging the sale of a vacant plot of land sold by one Muhammad Saleem to Bilal Khan (petitioner herein).

2. The main contention in the suit was that the land in question was part of the village Shamlat but neither Muhammad Saleem vendor, nor Bilal Khan vendee, were co‑owners in the said Shamlat. Munawar Khan respondent /plaintiff sought a declaration that the sale in question was void with respect to the interests of the village Proprietary Body. Nine issues were framed and after recording the evidence, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit with costs on 13‑2‑1982. Munawar Khan, respondent/ plaintiff filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Kohat, who reversed the decision of the trial Court and decreed the suit in his favour.

Feeling aggrieved Bilal Khan, vendee/ defendant (petitioner) filed a civil revision in the High Court challenging the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Kohat. The High Court after discussing the evidence on the record upheld the finding of the Additional District Judge that the suit land was part of the village Shamlat and since neither vendor nor the vendee was owner in the Proprietary Body of the said village, as such the sale of the plot in dispute by Muhammad Saleem to Bilal Khan (petitioner) was void and ineffective qua the interests of the Village Proprietary Body. It is against this decision that Bilal Khan has filed the present petition for leave to appeal.

3. We heard the petitioner's counsel at length but find that he has not been able to raise any substantial question of law requiring determination by this Court nor has he been able to point out any flaw in the impugned judgment. We therefore do not think it a fit case for interference with the same. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

M . Z . M . 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.