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 Leave to Appeal No.651 of 1980, decided on 17th August, 1983.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 13‑2‑1980, in W.P. 162‑R of 1974).
‑‑‑Arts.185(3) & 199‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilita tion) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.10 & Sched.‑‑Transfer of property through auction‑‑High Court restoring auction purchase of respondent on various grounds including petitioner's negligence, belated challenge in appeal (after eight years)‑‑Held, discretionary jurisdiction of Supreme Court cannot be exercised in Favour of petitioner on account of his silence for eight years‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Mian Nisar Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 17th August, 1983.
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an urban settlement case relating to the auction of a unit in a composite property. The petitioner was successful in one auction but having failed to pay the full earnest money, the auction in his favour was cancelled in 1965. In a subsequent auction in 1973, the respondent succeeded. This was challenged by the petitioner on the basis of certain points relatable to his own purchase and order of cancellation thereof and succeeded before the settlement authority.
The High Court, however, on respondents' constitutional petition, restored his auction purchase on various grounds including petitioner's negligence, belated challenge in the first round appeal (after nearly eight years) and the respondent being a bona fide purchaser.
Learned counsel has tried to meet all these points with reference to purely legal position. The petitioner as respondent might have succeeded in the High Court on these consideration; but here. He is seeking relief in the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court. We on account of silence of the petitioner for eight would not exercise the same. Leave accordingly is refused.
S. Q. Leave refused
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer