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 No. 593 of 1979, decided on 20th February, 1985.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 20‑6‑1979 in R.S.A. No. 557 of 1976).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S. 21‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100‑‑Suit for pre ‑emption‑‑Second appeal‑‑Plea that petitioner was not allowed to lead evidence though his witnesses were present in trial Court, held, not tenable in view of his counsel's making statement that witnesses who were present were not to be examined‑‑Mere presence of witnesses of no value when party calling them does not by itself want to produce them‑‑No injustice caused‑‑Other contentions having been properly dealt with by Courts below‑‑No fault in conclusions drawn‑‑No question of law requiring further consideration being involved, leave to appeal refused, in circumstances.
M. Anwar Beg, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 20th February, 1985.
The petitioner an unsuccessful defendant vendee seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated the 20th of June, 1979 whereby a regular second appeal filed by him, was dismissed.
The sale of land had taken place on 10‑8‑1972. Ghulam Hussain and Allah Din by two separate suits pre‑empted the sale. It was contested but was decreed in equal shares in favour of both. The first appeal as well as the second appeal failed. Hence this petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was not allowed to lead evidence though his witnesses were present in the Court premises and this denial amounted to non‑observance of principles of natural justice. He also contended that the pre‑emptors suits were defective on account of partial pre‑emption and the trial Court unjustifiably remedied the defect by suo motu making corrections in the plaint. Finally, it was contended that the petitioner being the grandson of the vendor and the owner of the land in the adjoining village had an equal if not a better right of pre‑emption to defeat the claim of the plaintiff‑respondent .
As regards the closure of evidence it is not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the counsel representing the petitioner in the trial Court himself made the statement that the witnesses who were present were not to be examined. The mere presence of witnesses is of no value when the party calling them does not itself want to produce them. There would in such case be no injustice done nor failure to observe principles of natural justice. As regards the other grounds, they have been dealt with by the Courts at the various) levels and found to be without merit.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find no fault in the conclusions drawn by the two Courts. There does not arise in the case any question of law such as may require further examination in this Court. Hence leave to appeal is refused.
M. I. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer